Wow, it's been a long time since posting...whatever.
Ok, so I just heard that the $787B stimulus is now being proudly touted as saving 650,000 jobs.
WTF?
Let's break this down a little. We spent $787B and we only got 650,000 jobs? I will now demonstrate what an offensive and gross waste of money this was.
The Hard Data: Suppose that we just take the money and give it directly to the people. They wouldn't even have to work. So by that measure, 650,000 people would have gotten $1.2 MILLION dollars each.
"Hey," you say "that's not fair. Less than 1/2 the stimulus money has been spent." Alright, I understand your concern. Let's just cut the number in half (for easy number crunching). Now each worker only gets $600,000. Damn, I have no idea how I would ever be able to survive on such a paltry sum.
Alright. Now, let's do something a little more interesting. Suppose that instead of getting these people jobs, let's just give them a *reasonable* amount of money to carry them for a year. Let's just make that number $40,000. Under this plan, even with only half the stimulus spent, it would have supported nearly 19.7 MILLION people. I would like to point out that, according to the BLS, there are only 15.1 million people unemployed.
TADA!!!
I will now take a bow, go find the crackerjack box that has the Nobel Prize for Economics in it, and start working on a cure for cancer.
Friday, October 30, 2009
Friday, December 12, 2008
UTFCU Sucks
Today, my credit union started a mobile site for the wonderful convenience of mobile banking. This, on its own, isn't a huge deal.... except that it's horribly flawed in terms of security. For those of you without a copy of the latest FFIEC best practices document (that's a government bureau that sets standards for banking industry stuff, including internet banking security), let me walk you through the normal UTFCU site and then we'll look at the mobile site.
On the normal site, (http://www.utfcu.org) users are asked to provide their username and enter a CAPTCHA. This is a good start. The site redirects you to the secure address (https://...), it knows who you are (the account number) and by using the CAPTCHA, it keeps out the majority of would-be criminals.
On the next screen, if your computer does not have a file (cookie) on it telling the website that you've been here before, the site prompts you with a security question. Another reasonable measure. Shared secrets (if they're actually secret) are a reasonable counter-measure against identity theft.
Finally, before you are allowed to access your account, you must provide your password and the site shows you user phrase. This is a graphic of a phrase that the user previously selected. The idea behind this is that the site is proving to the user that this is the real McCoy and not some phishing site. Once you enter the valid password, you're in
Now, let's compare this to the mobile site at http://mobile.utfcu.org.
First, it's important that you go to https://mobile.utfcu.org. Otherwise the site will give you a nasty-gram. This isn't a flaw, but it's certainly not user friendly.
Once you are there, the site is simple and straightforward for use in mobile browsers. It immediately asks for account # and password, and upon providing this, it lets you in.
WHAT??!!??
Let's review:
So, me, being a concerned member, replied back to the UTFCU twitter account that they used to announce the feature ('cause UTFCU's trying to get wit' the kidz on the new hotness...which they think is Twitter)....
I shouldn't have wasted my time. Here's the conversation:
UTFCU UTFCU now offers mobile banking. Visit our website for details and login instructions!
dfcoates @UTFCU Why is the mobile site lacking in 2 factor autentication and user watermarks, isn't 2 factor mandatory under PCI-DSS / other stds?
UTFCU @dfcoates Good question! Actually, it is multi-factor. It uses the device number from your mobile telephone.
dfcoates @UTFCU not from what I'm seeing...I can use my own PC to hit https://mobile...and it works...how is this not a major security lapse?
[Direct Message] UTFCU are you able to login to your account using that method?
[Direct Message] dfcoates yes...And I can use my ipod touch which also has no esn or phone number
[Direct Message] UTFCU just to verify - you're going to .org, right? Can u send a screenshot from desktop browser window for me to frwd to developer?
[Direct Message] dfcoates No problem, I can send a screen shot, but I'll need a real e-mail address from you (as opposed to twitter).
UTFCU @dfcoates we allow 3 devices to auto-enroll but I will be happy to lower the number of devices on your acct. if you want.
[Direct Message] UTFCU the device number is created by the system and stored in a cookie. We allow 3 auto-enrolls and a maximum of 5 total clients.
UTFCU I can disable mobile banking for your account if you want or send you the number for our VP of IT.
There are a multitude of things wrong here and if you, the reader, would like to opt out here, I don't blame you. I'll let the above facts speak for themselves. If, however, you would like to hear what I think is wrong, follow me!
To put this in context, if my workplace did this same stunt, we'd be looking at six figure fines from Visa. I suspect the same may be true for credit unions. However, I'd rather they fix it than get fined...remember that credit unions are member owned, and inevitably, a negative event for them is really a negative event for me as a member. I guess my only true recourse is publishing what I know, which is what you see here, and finding a new credit union, because, at least today, UTFCUROCKS SUCKS.
On the normal site, (http://www.utfcu.org) users are asked to provide their username and enter a CAPTCHA. This is a good start. The site redirects you to the secure address (https://...), it knows who you are (the account number) and by using the CAPTCHA, it keeps out the majority of would-be criminals.
On the next screen, if your computer does not have a file (cookie) on it telling the website that you've been here before, the site prompts you with a security question. Another reasonable measure. Shared secrets (if they're actually secret) are a reasonable counter-measure against identity theft.
Finally, before you are allowed to access your account, you must provide your password and the site shows you user phrase. This is a graphic of a phrase that the user previously selected. The idea behind this is that the site is proving to the user that this is the real McCoy and not some phishing site. Once you enter the valid password, you're in
Now, let's compare this to the mobile site at http://mobile.utfcu.org.
First, it's important that you go to https://mobile.utfcu.org. Otherwise the site will give you a nasty-gram. This isn't a flaw, but it's certainly not user friendly.
Once you are there, the site is simple and straightforward for use in mobile browsers. It immediately asks for account # and password, and upon providing this, it lets you in.
WHAT??!!??
Let's review:
- No CAPTCHA
- No Security Question
- No Site authenticity image
So, me, being a concerned member, replied back to the UTFCU twitter account that they used to announce the feature ('cause UTFCU's trying to get wit' the kidz on the new hotness...which they think is Twitter)....
I shouldn't have wasted my time. Here's the conversation:
UTFCU UTFCU now offers mobile banking. Visit our website for details and login instructions!
dfcoates @UTFCU Why is the mobile site lacking in 2 factor autentication and user watermarks, isn't 2 factor mandatory under PCI-DSS / other stds?
UTFCU @dfcoates Good question! Actually, it is multi-factor. It uses the device number from your mobile telephone.
dfcoates @UTFCU not from what I'm seeing...I can use my own PC to hit https://mobile...and it works...how is this not a major security lapse?
[Direct Message] UTFCU are you able to login to your account using that method?
[Direct Message] dfcoates yes...And I can use my ipod touch which also has no esn or phone number
[Direct Message] UTFCU just to verify - you're going to .org, right? Can u send a screenshot from desktop browser window for me to frwd to developer?
[Direct Message] dfcoates No problem, I can send a screen shot, but I'll need a real e-mail address from you (as opposed to twitter).
UTFCU @dfcoates we allow 3 devices to auto-enroll but I will be happy to lower the number of devices on your acct. if you want.
[Direct Message] UTFCU the device number is created by the system and stored in a cookie. We allow 3 auto-enrolls and a maximum of 5 total clients.
UTFCU I can disable mobile banking for your account if you want or send you the number for our VP of IT.
There are a multitude of things wrong here and if you, the reader, would like to opt out here, I don't blame you. I'll let the above facts speak for themselves. If, however, you would like to hear what I think is wrong, follow me!
- It uses the device number from your mobile telephone? Yeah, and it uses this amazing facial recognition software using the pixels in your screen, sure, whatever. Just in case you're wondering, there is no such thing. Your phone doesn't send it's phone number or it's ESN when it connects to a website. The closest you can get to a device number is looking at the IP address and/or hostname where the request is coming from. This is very flawed because users on different get new IP addresses weekly, daily, even hourly. Multiple computers can show the same IP address, and finally, IP addresses can be "spoofed" (hacked). In fact, the website gets very little information about who you are. If you'd like to see what a website receives when you visit, try this page.
Secondly, the site doesn't have to be accessed via a cell phone like device. Feel free to go to https://mobile.utfcu.org right now using your regular browser. Now, it's true that the site could programmatically block users of non-mobile web browsers, but this is flawed for two reasons: 1-Browser ID's can be hacked/faked very easily. 2-Not all mobile browsers are run on phones, take my iPod Touch, for example. It runs the same Safari web browser that is used on the iPhone. Therefore, there is no way to tell the difference between an iPhone and an iPod Touch. - The device number is created by the system and stored in a cookie. We allow 3 auto-enrolls and a maximum of 5 total clients. This might actually work if it weren't for the fact that they have no idea which devices are mine and which are not. Unfortunately, they don't. The enrollment process on the site is to simply log into the mobile site. There is no process to validate the account or accountholder over the phone or over the existing fully featured site. Instead, the site checks to see if you have a cookie if you were previously there. If not, it checks to see if it's issued cookies to you at this IP address before. If it has, and you're below the limit of 3, you can log in. If it hasn't, and you haven't logged in from 5 other locations previously, you also get in.
If this doesn't sound secure, you're right. The site isn't preventing malicious users from hacking your account, they're only preventing users coming from more than 5 locations from hacking your account. This also means that if you wipe private data from your web browser on a regular basis, you're up a creek after the 3rd iteration. So much for keeping your own browser secure....
There's another fundamental flaw here... simply put, cookies are very insecure, and if you have the right tool, like the free Add N Edit Cookies Add On for FireFox, you can copy the cookies they give you to as many machines as you want...so much for the 5 location limit. - I can disable mobile banking for your account if you want or send you the number for our VP of IT. This is classic. This is the old "well, if you don't like it, you can shove off" trick. The thing is, I actually do want mobile banking, and I think a lot of people do. This, for me, was the tipping point and the reason I've been typing for over an hour. It says to me, "we're not going to fix it, so run along home." Unfortunately for them, they've upset an IT professional who has worked intimately with electronic payment processing and PCI secure systems for over 3 years and while banking is slightly different from payment processing, I know a major security flaw when I see one.
- No CAPTCHA = lots of attacks - Now that I've demonstrated that the 3 and 5 limits do nothing, there's nothing except velocity limits to stop an enterprising would-be criminal... great.
- No security question and no site authenticity = phishing phishing phishing.... Just for fun, I looked up domains and found out that utfuc.org and uftcu.org (typo spellings) are completely open to purchase. An enterprising soul could simply copy the HTML on the current mobile site and just let the account numbers and passwords come in.... not so good... and my apologies to UTFCU for probably forcing their hand to buy up those domains to protect their accounts....
To put this in context, if my workplace did this same stunt, we'd be looking at six figure fines from Visa. I suspect the same may be true for credit unions. However, I'd rather they fix it than get fined...remember that credit unions are member owned, and inevitably, a negative event for them is really a negative event for me as a member. I guess my only true recourse is publishing what I know, which is what you see here, and finding a new credit union, because, at least today, UTFCU
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Why I'm NOT Voting for Barack Obama
I don't normally consider myself a political person. In most political races I am luke-warm on the issues at best, and rarely if ever take the time to actually read up on the candidates. Two days before I go vote, I might dig around and do a little bit of research to make sure there's nothing on my chosen candidate that I would consider a "deal breaker" per se, and if I don't find that information in my cursory search, then I proceed with my vote as usual. Inevitably, I get to the polling location only to discover that there was something on the ballot that I didn't even know was an issue to begin with and that winds up being a "close your eyes and pick" vote because I am completely uninformed.
But I digress...
This year's Presidential campaign, however, is different. I don't know why I suddenly, I don't know, care, but Presidential fever has hit the nation. Considering the fact that the Presidential campaigns started gearing up almost two years ago, I really thought that everyone would be completely over the whole thing by now. Instead, the campaigns seem to be getting more and more heated as time goes by, and I see people becoming involved in politics who never cared enough about it before to do so--like me.
So, I feel strangely compelled to give my reasons for choosing NOT to vote for Senator Barack Obama in the 2008 Presidential Election. That's right, you read it, folks, I am a McPalin supporter. I even have a freakin' McCain/Palin sign on my front lawn as we speak--an act that I would have never imagined myself doing a scant 2 months ago. Yet there it sits, joined by its two friends belonging to houses down the street from us.
I have watched the political debates and I find myself growing frustrated with the ridiculous questions. If I have to hear about either McCain's or Obama's foreign policy experience/ideas I think I might scream. I DON'T CARE ABOUT THEIR STANCES ON FOREIGN POLICY! And I don't think that many Americans do. When I sit with my fellow teachers at lunch discussing the Presidential candidates, I promise that we have never ONCE mentioned foreign policy. Here are the topics I hear teachers expressing at the lunch table: health care, taxes, education (of course), and the military.
In my mind, the nation's health care system and taxes are inextricably linked. Either way you cut it, any proposed change to the health care system is going to affect our taxes--like it or not. While I can't say that I'm a huge supporter of McCain's idea which allows the basic principles of capitalism to influence healthcare, I can definitely say that I am 100% opposed to the concept of socialized health care that Barack Obama is suggesting. On his website, he (well, his writers) indicates that he wants to improve healthcare without government interference and then goes on to list 11 reforms that will all require government intervention. Last time I checked, anytime the government got involved in anything they screwed it up--and, typically, the more involved they get the more screwed up it becomes. Likewise, I refuse to believe that he thinks he's going to implement reforms without raising taxes. Rule about politics #1: Never believe a politician when they say they're not going to raise taxes. This applies to all politicians. Secondly, in case you missed this part: All these reforms aren't going to be rolled out all at once. They're going to be phased in. Like a dirty house, it only gets messier before it gets cleaner. This comes with at least one caveat: We could get half way through these grand reforms when, suddenly, President Obama and Vice-President Biden figure out that there isn't enough money to complete the reforms in a timely fashion. Or, even worse, they don't manage to complete their reforms before they leave office and the whole thing is left in a state of flux.
As I said before, I don't whole-heartedly support McCain's health care reform ideas, either. But I like them better. My sister-in-law pointed out the other day that people, generally, don't take the time to manage their own insurance efficiently until something happens forcing them to deal with it. Is it reasonable, she asked, to think that people from Tennessee are going to go looking for better insurance premiums in, say, Georgia? I don't know, but I know that I like having that option. If I choose not to go looking for other insurance, I have no one to blame but myself. I have no problems with competition and that's the basic premise behind McCain's health care initiatives. Allowing the basic principles of capitalism to apply to insurance. Competition is a great thing. Insurance companies who cannot remain competitive will fail because no one will want to use them. Insurance companies who offer a good product at a reasonable price will survive. Maybe United HealthCare will go away :-)
Education. I wish I could say that any one candidate has a good plan for education, but the reality is that neither is going to do anything worthwhile about No Child Left Behind which is almost the only thing I care about when it comes to education. All of their statements about education on their websites are simply asinine and serve only to prove that neither Senator has stepped foot in a classroom for more than 5 minutes since leaving college. Neither of them have a clue as to the unlying problems surrounding the education crisis in this country which means that all of their suggestions are bandaids at best. Thus, I can't make education a huge deciding factor in my case. However, don't think that just because the National Education Association is supporting Obama that his education plan is better than McCain's. Let me clue you educational outsiders in on something: the NEA is only in business for the NEA. They're not pro-student and half the time they're not even pro-teacher. They are pro-NEA. The only reason teachers really join the NEA anymore is for the liability insurance which no teacher should be caught dead without. But every year I see more and more of my fellow teachers failing to renew their NEA membership and turning elsewhere for liability insurance. If teachers won't support the NEA anymore, why should anyone else?
The final topic we discuss on a somewhat frequent basis is the military. I am truly still torn on this topic, partially because I have friends and co-workers who are and have been in the military. I want the troops to come home as much as the next person. I don't feel strongly in either direction on this, but I can't say that I don't care what the out-come is because I do. So, because I have been unable to ferret out my own feelings on this topic, I think it best to leave it for now and perhaps address it at a later time.
So, it sounds pretty sad that at the end of all this the only thing I can definitely say is that I definitely agree with McCain on health care. But there's more to my support than that. I think, as voters, we should realize that we are not really voting for the candidate so much as what they stand for. Obama wants to stand for change and progress. McCain, however, wants to embody honor and integrity.
I see the people that these candidates are trying to connect with, and I realize that, try as he might, Obama is not doing a very good job of connecting with the middle class, and I think part of that is because he doesn't really know who the middle class is. All of his reforms and policies aren't really designed to help me so much as they are designed to help those who are much lower on the socioeconomic scale than me. Don't get me wrong, I am all for helping people, but not when it's government mandated. And I am all for progress and change, but not when it comes on the backs of people who all ready are overworked and underpaid which is most of the middle class.
As a refresher, I looked up the definition of "integrity" and found this: adherence to moral and ethical principles; soundness of moral character; honesty. Synonyms: rectitude, probity, virtue. See Honor. I don't typically associate the words "honesty" and "politics" in the same sentence--in fact, I sometimes wonder if the two terms aren't mutually exclusive. But, if I had to pick the one who I feel has more integrity, I have to say McCain has it hands down. I can't ignore the fact that Obama associates with some people who are less than savory and I am amazed at how quickly he seeks to distance himself from those people when their associations are less than convenient. I wish I could say it was a non-issue, but you and I both know that you are who you associate with. I see it with my students every day. You don't have to like it, but it's a fact: Humans gravitate towards individuals who are like themselves because they are most comfortable with them. You cannot honestly believe that Obama sat in Jeremiah Wright's church for 20+ years and didn't absorb at least a little bit of what the man was saying. And if he thought it was wrong, then he had a responsibility to disengage himself from the group WAAAAAY before he actually did. In addition to that, if he won't stand up to Jeremiah Wright and say, "You've crossed the line. My family and I are leaving" then he sure as hell won't stand up to a terrorist. That's just a little spineless in my opinion. And if he joined the church just for a little "street cred" so to speak, then he joined for the wrong reasons which only leaves me questioning his faith. I don't care if the man is Muslim or Christian or Jewish, but I wish he'd pick one and stick with it for awhile. If you can't be honest with me about a little thing like your faith, then what else are you not being honest with me about? If I question your honesty then I have to question your integrity and integrity is important to me.
Anyway, this post has gone on much too long. I could go on about the energy crisis, abortion, etc., but do you really want to read anymore? If so, I'll probably post again later about other issues so you can come back for more then :-)
But I digress...
This year's Presidential campaign, however, is different. I don't know why I suddenly, I don't know, care, but Presidential fever has hit the nation. Considering the fact that the Presidential campaigns started gearing up almost two years ago, I really thought that everyone would be completely over the whole thing by now. Instead, the campaigns seem to be getting more and more heated as time goes by, and I see people becoming involved in politics who never cared enough about it before to do so--like me.
So, I feel strangely compelled to give my reasons for choosing NOT to vote for Senator Barack Obama in the 2008 Presidential Election. That's right, you read it, folks, I am a McPalin supporter. I even have a freakin' McCain/Palin sign on my front lawn as we speak--an act that I would have never imagined myself doing a scant 2 months ago. Yet there it sits, joined by its two friends belonging to houses down the street from us.
I have watched the political debates and I find myself growing frustrated with the ridiculous questions. If I have to hear about either McCain's or Obama's foreign policy experience/ideas I think I might scream. I DON'T CARE ABOUT THEIR STANCES ON FOREIGN POLICY! And I don't think that many Americans do. When I sit with my fellow teachers at lunch discussing the Presidential candidates, I promise that we have never ONCE mentioned foreign policy. Here are the topics I hear teachers expressing at the lunch table: health care, taxes, education (of course), and the military.
In my mind, the nation's health care system and taxes are inextricably linked. Either way you cut it, any proposed change to the health care system is going to affect our taxes--like it or not. While I can't say that I'm a huge supporter of McCain's idea which allows the basic principles of capitalism to influence healthcare, I can definitely say that I am 100% opposed to the concept of socialized health care that Barack Obama is suggesting. On his website, he (well, his writers) indicates that he wants to improve healthcare without government interference and then goes on to list 11 reforms that will all require government intervention. Last time I checked, anytime the government got involved in anything they screwed it up--and, typically, the more involved they get the more screwed up it becomes. Likewise, I refuse to believe that he thinks he's going to implement reforms without raising taxes. Rule about politics #1: Never believe a politician when they say they're not going to raise taxes. This applies to all politicians. Secondly, in case you missed this part: All these reforms aren't going to be rolled out all at once. They're going to be phased in. Like a dirty house, it only gets messier before it gets cleaner. This comes with at least one caveat: We could get half way through these grand reforms when, suddenly, President Obama and Vice-President Biden figure out that there isn't enough money to complete the reforms in a timely fashion. Or, even worse, they don't manage to complete their reforms before they leave office and the whole thing is left in a state of flux.
As I said before, I don't whole-heartedly support McCain's health care reform ideas, either. But I like them better. My sister-in-law pointed out the other day that people, generally, don't take the time to manage their own insurance efficiently until something happens forcing them to deal with it. Is it reasonable, she asked, to think that people from Tennessee are going to go looking for better insurance premiums in, say, Georgia? I don't know, but I know that I like having that option. If I choose not to go looking for other insurance, I have no one to blame but myself. I have no problems with competition and that's the basic premise behind McCain's health care initiatives. Allowing the basic principles of capitalism to apply to insurance. Competition is a great thing. Insurance companies who cannot remain competitive will fail because no one will want to use them. Insurance companies who offer a good product at a reasonable price will survive. Maybe United HealthCare will go away :-)
Education. I wish I could say that any one candidate has a good plan for education, but the reality is that neither is going to do anything worthwhile about No Child Left Behind which is almost the only thing I care about when it comes to education. All of their statements about education on their websites are simply asinine and serve only to prove that neither Senator has stepped foot in a classroom for more than 5 minutes since leaving college. Neither of them have a clue as to the unlying problems surrounding the education crisis in this country which means that all of their suggestions are bandaids at best. Thus, I can't make education a huge deciding factor in my case. However, don't think that just because the National Education Association is supporting Obama that his education plan is better than McCain's. Let me clue you educational outsiders in on something: the NEA is only in business for the NEA. They're not pro-student and half the time they're not even pro-teacher. They are pro-NEA. The only reason teachers really join the NEA anymore is for the liability insurance which no teacher should be caught dead without. But every year I see more and more of my fellow teachers failing to renew their NEA membership and turning elsewhere for liability insurance. If teachers won't support the NEA anymore, why should anyone else?
The final topic we discuss on a somewhat frequent basis is the military. I am truly still torn on this topic, partially because I have friends and co-workers who are and have been in the military. I want the troops to come home as much as the next person. I don't feel strongly in either direction on this, but I can't say that I don't care what the out-come is because I do. So, because I have been unable to ferret out my own feelings on this topic, I think it best to leave it for now and perhaps address it at a later time.
So, it sounds pretty sad that at the end of all this the only thing I can definitely say is that I definitely agree with McCain on health care. But there's more to my support than that. I think, as voters, we should realize that we are not really voting for the candidate so much as what they stand for. Obama wants to stand for change and progress. McCain, however, wants to embody honor and integrity.
I see the people that these candidates are trying to connect with, and I realize that, try as he might, Obama is not doing a very good job of connecting with the middle class, and I think part of that is because he doesn't really know who the middle class is. All of his reforms and policies aren't really designed to help me so much as they are designed to help those who are much lower on the socioeconomic scale than me. Don't get me wrong, I am all for helping people, but not when it's government mandated. And I am all for progress and change, but not when it comes on the backs of people who all ready are overworked and underpaid which is most of the middle class.
As a refresher, I looked up the definition of "integrity" and found this: adherence to moral and ethical principles; soundness of moral character; honesty. Synonyms: rectitude, probity, virtue. See Honor. I don't typically associate the words "honesty" and "politics" in the same sentence--in fact, I sometimes wonder if the two terms aren't mutually exclusive. But, if I had to pick the one who I feel has more integrity, I have to say McCain has it hands down. I can't ignore the fact that Obama associates with some people who are less than savory and I am amazed at how quickly he seeks to distance himself from those people when their associations are less than convenient. I wish I could say it was a non-issue, but you and I both know that you are who you associate with. I see it with my students every day. You don't have to like it, but it's a fact: Humans gravitate towards individuals who are like themselves because they are most comfortable with them. You cannot honestly believe that Obama sat in Jeremiah Wright's church for 20+ years and didn't absorb at least a little bit of what the man was saying. And if he thought it was wrong, then he had a responsibility to disengage himself from the group WAAAAAY before he actually did. In addition to that, if he won't stand up to Jeremiah Wright and say, "You've crossed the line. My family and I are leaving" then he sure as hell won't stand up to a terrorist. That's just a little spineless in my opinion. And if he joined the church just for a little "street cred" so to speak, then he joined for the wrong reasons which only leaves me questioning his faith. I don't care if the man is Muslim or Christian or Jewish, but I wish he'd pick one and stick with it for awhile. If you can't be honest with me about a little thing like your faith, then what else are you not being honest with me about? If I question your honesty then I have to question your integrity and integrity is important to me.
Anyway, this post has gone on much too long. I could go on about the energy crisis, abortion, etc., but do you really want to read anymore? If so, I'll probably post again later about other issues so you can come back for more then :-)
Monday, September 29, 2008
Letter #2: Do not give up!!!
Senators Corker and Alexander, Congressman Duncan:
I wrote a letter to you nearly a week ago expressing my displeasure with regards to what the media has steadfastly referred to as the "$700 Billion Bailout Plan." As previously noted, I am opposed to this plan for a multitude of reasons including the murky and disturbing relationship that FNMA and FDMC hold in association with the government, the concept of allowing private companies that made bad decisions to continue without facing adequate consequences and the notion that $700 billion dollars be disbursed so rapidly with so little scrutiny (and furthermore that any plan must include $700 Billion dollars).
I understand that the lobbying pressure on all of you is enormous. You are being pressed from all sides, including other members and leadership in the Congress, the President and his appointees and notable private industry groups and organizations. I truly appreciate this and am encouraging you to continue your fight. I am proud of the way Representative Duncan and 4 other members of the Tennessee delegation stood up to this political scourge during the roll call today. I exhort you to encourage all members representing Tennessee to stand up and fight for us, your constituents.
Further, I strongly encourage discussion and implementation of alternatives proposed by Governor Mike Huckaby, economist Brian Westbury, the Heritage Foundation and others. There are ways to encourage the markets to correct themselves without spending (as much) taxpayer money, without putting nearly sole control of a gargantuan pile of dollars in the hands of a few individuals, and without moving our economy closer to socialism.
We need to now draw a line in the sand and firmly state that no more will we be reliant on excessive amounts of debt to fund our economy and government. We must return to fundamentals, both as individuals and families as well as government. We must spend less than we earn, stick to our budgets and set money aside for a rainy day. This change will not be easy, nor will it be instant. However, we are a unique nation. We have withstood wars, outlasted our enemies and reacted honorably and amazing when we were attacked on our own soil 7 years ago. If we can withstand the atrocities of the World Trade Center attack, we can withstand what may be a very cold winter, economically speaking. We will stand together and become a stronger nation with a more robust economic base, a stronger currency and we will continue to be the envy of the world and the single desire and focus of enterprising immigrants that come to achieve their goals under the blanket of freedom.
In summary, I again insist "DO NOT GIVE UP!" Fight for those you represent and encourage others to continue to carry the message of the people. Produce a plan that involves the change to mark-to-market, insists on an insurance stand by the government rather than a buyout, changes capital gains tax to encourage investment and promotes fundamentally sound market principles. Do not extend loans! We will all be watching how you vote regarding this. If you vote for loans and excessive spending, not only will it cost you my vote, but it will cost you the vote of everyone I can persuade and convince.
Finally, thank you for your service during this difficult time. History will ultimately show who stepped up during this time of need and who did not.
Sincerely,
Dan Coates
Knoxville, TN
I wrote a letter to you nearly a week ago expressing my displeasure with regards to what the media has steadfastly referred to as the "$700 Billion Bailout Plan." As previously noted, I am opposed to this plan for a multitude of reasons including the murky and disturbing relationship that FNMA and FDMC hold in association with the government, the concept of allowing private companies that made bad decisions to continue without facing adequate consequences and the notion that $700 billion dollars be disbursed so rapidly with so little scrutiny (and furthermore that any plan must include $700 Billion dollars).
I understand that the lobbying pressure on all of you is enormous. You are being pressed from all sides, including other members and leadership in the Congress, the President and his appointees and notable private industry groups and organizations. I truly appreciate this and am encouraging you to continue your fight. I am proud of the way Representative Duncan and 4 other members of the Tennessee delegation stood up to this political scourge during the roll call today. I exhort you to encourage all members representing Tennessee to stand up and fight for us, your constituents.
Further, I strongly encourage discussion and implementation of alternatives proposed by Governor Mike Huckaby, economist Brian Westbury, the Heritage Foundation and others. There are ways to encourage the markets to correct themselves without spending (as much) taxpayer money, without putting nearly sole control of a gargantuan pile of dollars in the hands of a few individuals, and without moving our economy closer to socialism.
We need to now draw a line in the sand and firmly state that no more will we be reliant on excessive amounts of debt to fund our economy and government. We must return to fundamentals, both as individuals and families as well as government. We must spend less than we earn, stick to our budgets and set money aside for a rainy day. This change will not be easy, nor will it be instant. However, we are a unique nation. We have withstood wars, outlasted our enemies and reacted honorably and amazing when we were attacked on our own soil 7 years ago. If we can withstand the atrocities of the World Trade Center attack, we can withstand what may be a very cold winter, economically speaking. We will stand together and become a stronger nation with a more robust economic base, a stronger currency and we will continue to be the envy of the world and the single desire and focus of enterprising immigrants that come to achieve their goals under the blanket of freedom.
In summary, I again insist "DO NOT GIVE UP!" Fight for those you represent and encourage others to continue to carry the message of the people. Produce a plan that involves the change to mark-to-market, insists on an insurance stand by the government rather than a buyout, changes capital gains tax to encourage investment and promotes fundamentally sound market principles. Do not extend loans! We will all be watching how you vote regarding this. If you vote for loans and excessive spending, not only will it cost you my vote, but it will cost you the vote of everyone I can persuade and convince.
Finally, thank you for your service during this difficult time. History will ultimately show who stepped up during this time of need and who did not.
Sincerely,
Dan Coates
Knoxville, TN
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
An Open Letter to Congressman Duncan, and Senators Corker and Alexander
Honorable Representatives of the State of Tennessee,
I have never had or felt the need to personally contact my congressional representatives. Normally, I find there to be enough people representing my interests to suffice. However, with regards to the current financial issues on Wall Street and congressional action regarding that, I must speak up. This is due to the nature of the legislation, that is, a $700 billion dollar plan that has great pressure being applied to it to get passed in an extremely rapid and, in my opinion, rash manner.
As an informed and engaged citizen of this country, a resident of Tennessee and a constituent in your district, I am imploring you to reject this plan and instead consider enacting the following changes:
Admittedly, item 2 will not be free, but extending the insurance is far better than buying and managing these securities. The estimate that I read was $40 billion. This is less than 15% of the cost of the currently proposed plan.
I would prefer that these companies resolve these issues themselves rather than force me and the US tax-paying populous to buy stuff we don't need (like the mortgage businesses and insurance company we bought earlier this month).
Please apply laser-like focus to this item. While I personally believe that the media has over-dramatized the situation, it is still extremely important and should not be slowed down by additional controversial and/or partisan legislation.
Finally, I will again stress my opposition to spending $700 billion dollars to purchase these financial instruments. I will be closely watching how you vote in this matter. If you vote to add a massive figure to the national debt, not only will you never have my vote again, I will exercise every opportunity I have to influence my friends and family to withhold their vote as well.
As I noted above, prior to this, I have never been politically active. I believe that my action now, along with the action of others who have never participated in this way, speaks to the gravity of this issue.
Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter.
Kind Regards,
Dan Coates
Knoxville, TN
Additional Reference: http://www.daveramsey.com/tdrs/index.cfm/2008/9/23/Fix-the-bailout-with-mark-to-market?ictid=sptlt
Notes: I have personalized and submitted this letter to the congressional representatives listed above via e-mail. Please consider doing the same. Feel free to copy my letter. However, I encourage you to personalize your message to them rather than simply copy, since it reinforces your commitment to the issue.
I have never had or felt the need to personally contact my congressional representatives. Normally, I find there to be enough people representing my interests to suffice. However, with regards to the current financial issues on Wall Street and congressional action regarding that, I must speak up. This is due to the nature of the legislation, that is, a $700 billion dollar plan that has great pressure being applied to it to get passed in an extremely rapid and, in my opinion, rash manner.
As an informed and engaged citizen of this country, a resident of Tennessee and a constituent in your district, I am imploring you to reject this plan and instead consider enacting the following changes:
- Change/Suspend the Sarbanes-Oxley accounting principle regarding mark-to-market for sub-prime loans only on a temporary basis.
- Extend the FHA insurance program to include sub-prime loans.
Admittedly, item 2 will not be free, but extending the insurance is far better than buying and managing these securities. The estimate that I read was $40 billion. This is less than 15% of the cost of the currently proposed plan.
I would prefer that these companies resolve these issues themselves rather than force me and the US tax-paying populous to buy stuff we don't need (like the mortgage businesses and insurance company we bought earlier this month).
Please apply laser-like focus to this item. While I personally believe that the media has over-dramatized the situation, it is still extremely important and should not be slowed down by additional controversial and/or partisan legislation.
Finally, I will again stress my opposition to spending $700 billion dollars to purchase these financial instruments. I will be closely watching how you vote in this matter. If you vote to add a massive figure to the national debt, not only will you never have my vote again, I will exercise every opportunity I have to influence my friends and family to withhold their vote as well.
As I noted above, prior to this, I have never been politically active. I believe that my action now, along with the action of others who have never participated in this way, speaks to the gravity of this issue.
Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter.
Kind Regards,
Dan Coates
Knoxville, TN
Additional Reference: http://www.daveramsey.com/tdrs/index.cfm/2008/9/23/Fix-the-bailout-with-mark-to-market?ictid=sptlt
Notes: I have personalized and submitted this letter to the congressional representatives listed above via e-mail. Please consider doing the same. Feel free to copy my letter. However, I encourage you to personalize your message to them rather than simply copy, since it reinforces your commitment to the issue.
Saturday, September 13, 2008
Special Saturday Gasoline Edition
Dear folks who think they're being gouged at the pump:
First, sit down, take a deep breath, and repeat after me: "I wish I had taken micro-economics in high school or college."
It is true that retail gas prices have shot up to very high values. I won't argue with you there. However, don't immediately pin the outrage on the gas stations. This situation is very much unlike price hikes that have previously occurred. In this situation, it's not that fuel is overly expensive (in that it was overly expensive to produce), but it is simply NOT THERE. Take, for example, my current home of Knoxville, TN. Gas prices have risen dramatically, and some stations are out of fuel. In fact, there are published reports that the fuel terminals (the places where fuel trucks get loads to deliver to gas stations) are out of fuel, and Knoxville is not an isolated case. This is happening all over the place.
So now we have gas stations frantically hunting for fuel to put in their tanks to sell. They're looking for fuel hundreds of miles around their location and coming up empty. When they do find fuel, they are finding that the suppliers (at the fuel terminals) are selling the fuel they do have for $5+ / gallon.
So, why would they do that?
Well, let me give you a little analogy. Perhaps as you tune across the many channels on your TV, you may, at one time or another landed on an airing of the Barrett-Jackson car auction. You watch as they roll a car on stage and then begin bidding ridiculous amounts for a pristine 1969 whatever-mobile. Why do they sell for so much considering that the actual value of all of the components and labor is significantly less?
One of the reasons is that there is a very limited supply. Consider that if instead of there being only one of these vehicles being sold at the auction, there were 12. Would that not reduce the price paid for each one?
Now, what if the auction set a rule that stated "you can only sell a car for $1,000 more than its cost to produce" ? Would people sell cars there? Probably not. Even if they did, the car would simply go to the first person who bid, rather than the person wanted it the most.
The same thing is happening to gasoline. There is a limited supply. Stations who have kept their prices low are out of fuel. Like the auction, the people who got there first, rather than the people who wanted it the most, got the fuel.
Then there are stations that have raised their prices. They are relying of the elasticity of the market to determine how much is sold. In addition, they are simply setting their price in line with their costs (remember, wholesale fuel is at $5/gallon). When you see high gas prices, among the many thoughts and ideas the flow into your head (aside from "that f*#%ing sucks") is "how can I either reduce the price to me or reduce my use of gas?" This is exactly how capitalism works, folks. We chose what we do based on the cost to us. This is one reason why we all don't commute by plane.
So let me now answer some questions you may have about this.
"Hey, I'm not in the South. Our gas comes from the Northeast. This is a total screw. I'm certain I'm being gouged!"
Are you really sure? Remember, we're talking about a shortage here. Prices are higher simply because you do have fuel and others don't. If your local fuel terminal has fuel, chances are that there's a bunch of fuel trucks coming up from the South to get fuel. Thus, there's more demand and even if there's not a shortage, per se, the terminals only have so much fuel available at any given time, and don't continuously get pipeline deliveries.
"I can't believe it! I'm sure that I'm being gouged. Somebody (i.e. the government) should do something."
They have, and they will. One of the issues we face in this country is that we not only have several grades (i.e. octane levels) of gasoline, there are also different formulations that are required in different parts of the country at different times of the year to comply with local EPA guidelines. Any given refinery can only produce one of these many formulations at a time. Therefore, fuel refined in Utah can't simply be distributed in Tennessee (unless it's the right formulation for the right time period). To help the fuel shortage situation, the government has rolled back these restrictions in terms of time period (allowing "winter blend" to be sold now), smog reduction (reformulated, low vapor point fuels) and fuel quality (allowing foreign distillates, which are not as tightly refined, to be allowed for use in the U.S.).
In addition, local, state and federal government is on alert for price gouging. To be honest, there will be a few cases where gouging really occur. But on the whole, the prices are simply set a given amount above cost (usually 5-15 cents). Most price gouging hearings will go like this.
State senator: You've been accused of price gouging. You charged $5.50 a gallon for gasoline.
Gas station owner: I'm sorry your honor, I wish it were cheaper, since I don't like to upset my customers. I rely on them coming into my store to by drinks and snacks to make my business work. However, here's my wholesale invoice showing that I paid $5,40 a gallon for fuel. I made 10 cents a gallon, which is no more than what I made when gas was $1.50, $2.50 or $3.50.
State senator: Uhh, ok. I guess you didn't.
So folks, instead of getting mad, please count to ten, and think about what the market is really saying. I will paraphrase for you. "Gas is currently in short supply. Try to cut down on its use. If you don't, you will pay what the market dictates."
So, why isn't there any fuel? That's another excellent question, but it's one for another post. I'll give you a hint: most of the shortage is not Ike's fault. It's Ike's brothers fault.
Also, if you're still confused, here's an excellent post that describes it better than I did: http://shotsacrossthebow.com/archives/003044.html#003044
First, sit down, take a deep breath, and repeat after me: "I wish I had taken micro-economics in high school or college."
It is true that retail gas prices have shot up to very high values. I won't argue with you there. However, don't immediately pin the outrage on the gas stations. This situation is very much unlike price hikes that have previously occurred. In this situation, it's not that fuel is overly expensive (in that it was overly expensive to produce), but it is simply NOT THERE. Take, for example, my current home of Knoxville, TN. Gas prices have risen dramatically, and some stations are out of fuel. In fact, there are published reports that the fuel terminals (the places where fuel trucks get loads to deliver to gas stations) are out of fuel, and Knoxville is not an isolated case. This is happening all over the place.
So now we have gas stations frantically hunting for fuel to put in their tanks to sell. They're looking for fuel hundreds of miles around their location and coming up empty. When they do find fuel, they are finding that the suppliers (at the fuel terminals) are selling the fuel they do have for $5+ / gallon.
So, why would they do that?
Well, let me give you a little analogy. Perhaps as you tune across the many channels on your TV, you may, at one time or another landed on an airing of the Barrett-Jackson car auction. You watch as they roll a car on stage and then begin bidding ridiculous amounts for a pristine 1969 whatever-mobile. Why do they sell for so much considering that the actual value of all of the components and labor is significantly less?
One of the reasons is that there is a very limited supply. Consider that if instead of there being only one of these vehicles being sold at the auction, there were 12. Would that not reduce the price paid for each one?
Now, what if the auction set a rule that stated "you can only sell a car for $1,000 more than its cost to produce" ? Would people sell cars there? Probably not. Even if they did, the car would simply go to the first person who bid, rather than the person wanted it the most.
The same thing is happening to gasoline. There is a limited supply. Stations who have kept their prices low are out of fuel. Like the auction, the people who got there first, rather than the people who wanted it the most, got the fuel.
Then there are stations that have raised their prices. They are relying of the elasticity of the market to determine how much is sold. In addition, they are simply setting their price in line with their costs (remember, wholesale fuel is at $5/gallon). When you see high gas prices, among the many thoughts and ideas the flow into your head (aside from "that f*#%ing sucks") is "how can I either reduce the price to me or reduce my use of gas?" This is exactly how capitalism works, folks. We chose what we do based on the cost to us. This is one reason why we all don't commute by plane.
So let me now answer some questions you may have about this.
"Hey, I'm not in the South. Our gas comes from the Northeast. This is a total screw. I'm certain I'm being gouged!"
Are you really sure? Remember, we're talking about a shortage here. Prices are higher simply because you do have fuel and others don't. If your local fuel terminal has fuel, chances are that there's a bunch of fuel trucks coming up from the South to get fuel. Thus, there's more demand and even if there's not a shortage, per se, the terminals only have so much fuel available at any given time, and don't continuously get pipeline deliveries.
"I can't believe it! I'm sure that I'm being gouged. Somebody (i.e. the government) should do something."
They have, and they will. One of the issues we face in this country is that we not only have several grades (i.e. octane levels) of gasoline, there are also different formulations that are required in different parts of the country at different times of the year to comply with local EPA guidelines. Any given refinery can only produce one of these many formulations at a time. Therefore, fuel refined in Utah can't simply be distributed in Tennessee (unless it's the right formulation for the right time period). To help the fuel shortage situation, the government has rolled back these restrictions in terms of time period (allowing "winter blend" to be sold now), smog reduction (reformulated, low vapor point fuels) and fuel quality (allowing foreign distillates, which are not as tightly refined, to be allowed for use in the U.S.).
In addition, local, state and federal government is on alert for price gouging. To be honest, there will be a few cases where gouging really occur. But on the whole, the prices are simply set a given amount above cost (usually 5-15 cents). Most price gouging hearings will go like this.
State senator: You've been accused of price gouging. You charged $5.50 a gallon for gasoline.
Gas station owner: I'm sorry your honor, I wish it were cheaper, since I don't like to upset my customers. I rely on them coming into my store to by drinks and snacks to make my business work. However, here's my wholesale invoice showing that I paid $5,40 a gallon for fuel. I made 10 cents a gallon, which is no more than what I made when gas was $1.50, $2.50 or $3.50.
State senator: Uhh, ok. I guess you didn't.
So folks, instead of getting mad, please count to ten, and think about what the market is really saying. I will paraphrase for you. "Gas is currently in short supply. Try to cut down on its use. If you don't, you will pay what the market dictates."
So, why isn't there any fuel? That's another excellent question, but it's one for another post. I'll give you a hint: most of the shortage is not Ike's fault. It's Ike's brothers fault.
Also, if you're still confused, here's an excellent post that describes it better than I did: http://shotsacrossthebow.com/archives/003044.html#003044
Friday, September 12, 2008
Serious political-like stuff
Before I get into this post, I'll just disclose that I lean to the right. I know exactly who I'm voting for in the presidential race. I endorse the McCain/Palin in the presidential race, and I encourage you to vote for them as well, but more than that, I simply encourage you to vote and participate in the democratic process. In order to function at our best, we need to have citizens that exercise their civic rights.
I had originally planned to write a comparison of the preambles to the Republican and Democratic platform. Beyond all the hype, ads and spin, I believe that it's important to find out what each party believes and it would have been a truly excellent and almost scholarly comparison. However, I was surprised to find out that while the Republican platform is easily accessible via their website, a finalized version of the Democratic platform is not so easy to obtain. Draft copies can be found online, and I do recommend that you read both, but I don't feel it would be fair to compare a final version to a draft. While I can't necessarily say that the Republican platform wins due to forfeit, I must express my disappointment in the DNC for failing to make this document easily accessible.
However, in the search for the platform papers, I did find something else to review, their websites.
Websites being compared:
I am reviewing the front pages only.
As you might expect, each website is themed in each party's traditional colors. The headers are very similar. They each have title graphics, links to join e-mail lists, a menubar and a link for Spanish speakers/readers. In addition, both sites have links for contributions, social networking links and each has graphics in memorial of 9/11.
In terms of web technology, the Republican site is more dynamic and makes use of more web technology. Their rotating panel sets them apart from the Dems.
Other differences:
Overall, both sites have their strong points, both from a political and purely analytical standpoint. In additional, I would like to note that I think some of each site's design was modified for 9/11, so that may skew the results slightly. In my opinion, the RNC's site has the slight edge, since it maintains its ability to stay on message and keep looking forward by effectively using web technology. However, it should be noted that this edge is very slight. The DNC from a universal appeal point of view seems to handily beat the Republicans. They have sections that appeal to far more groups (although the practice of fracturing groups is questionable). They also make social networking with other dems much more simple and straightforward. I think the DNC would clearly win this tug-of-war if it reduced screenspace focused on McCain attacks and focused more on its strategy and plans.
In the end, it's not really what I think, but what is effective. We'll know the result of that in a couple months. In the interim, I recommend that you visit the sites of the candidates and their parties. Take a moment to really analyze what you are reading. Determine what you like and what you don't like. Evaluate for yourself whether a candidate has a solid stance on the issue or if they use words to detour you away from the answer.
I had originally planned to write a comparison of the preambles to the Republican and Democratic platform. Beyond all the hype, ads and spin, I believe that it's important to find out what each party believes and it would have been a truly excellent and almost scholarly comparison. However, I was surprised to find out that while the Republican platform is easily accessible via their website, a finalized version of the Democratic platform is not so easy to obtain. Draft copies can be found online, and I do recommend that you read both, but I don't feel it would be fair to compare a final version to a draft. While I can't necessarily say that the Republican platform wins due to forfeit, I must express my disappointment in the DNC for failing to make this document easily accessible.
However, in the search for the platform papers, I did find something else to review, their websites.
Websites being compared:
- RNC - http://www.gop.com/
- DNC - http://www.democrats.org/
I am reviewing the front pages only.
As you might expect, each website is themed in each party's traditional colors. The headers are very similar. They each have title graphics, links to join e-mail lists, a menubar and a link for Spanish speakers/readers. In addition, both sites have links for contributions, social networking links and each has graphics in memorial of 9/11.
In terms of web technology, the Republican site is more dynamic and makes use of more web technology. Their rotating panel sets them apart from the Dems.
Other differences:
- Each site has a Blog menu, the DNC has no subitems, while the RNC links to 5 different blogs, including 3 for the McCain campaign.
- Each party clearly is on the warpath against the opposite ticket. However, the Democrats are more aggressive in this area with 11 items/sections against McCain and/or Palin versus 4 items/sections on the Republican site.
- Both sites have sections aimed at specific populations. On the GOP side, it's called "Groups" and the DNC lists it as "People." The Republican list appears to be a subset of the Dems list with the exception of a section directed at "Catholics"... kinda interesting. The DNC attempts to appeal to 7 groups beyond the ones commonly shared with their conservative counterparts. They are: Asians, the disabled, LGBT, Native Americans, Rural Americans, Union members, and veterans/military.
- On the issues, both parties address health care, energy, retirement/social security, national security and tax reform. However, each has sections for issues pertinent to them. In additional to those just listed, the GOP has sections for Faith & Values, Education, Jobs & Economy, Legal Reform and Nominations. The DNC has sections for Open Government, Science & Technology, Environment & Climate Change, Immigration Reform and Civil Rights and Liberties.
- Oddly enough, each site has more images of their opponent on the front page than their own candidate. The Republican site does have John McCain and Sarah Palin on their rotator, keeping him above the fold, but only when that panel rotates into view. The Dems site has a static image of Obama and Biden, but it's in the form of a web-sticker that is part of the footer on the site.
Overall, both sites have their strong points, both from a political and purely analytical standpoint. In additional, I would like to note that I think some of each site's design was modified for 9/11, so that may skew the results slightly. In my opinion, the RNC's site has the slight edge, since it maintains its ability to stay on message and keep looking forward by effectively using web technology. However, it should be noted that this edge is very slight. The DNC from a universal appeal point of view seems to handily beat the Republicans. They have sections that appeal to far more groups (although the practice of fracturing groups is questionable). They also make social networking with other dems much more simple and straightforward. I think the DNC would clearly win this tug-of-war if it reduced screenspace focused on McCain attacks and focused more on its strategy and plans.
In the end, it's not really what I think, but what is effective. We'll know the result of that in a couple months. In the interim, I recommend that you visit the sites of the candidates and their parties. Take a moment to really analyze what you are reading. Determine what you like and what you don't like. Evaluate for yourself whether a candidate has a solid stance on the issue or if they use words to detour you away from the answer.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)