Statistically speaking.

The economy has lost 400,000 jobs since last May, and unemployment has remained at least at 9.5 percent for over a year, a record length not seen since the Great Depression. The real estate market is still bunk, the dollar is tanking, and in the last two years, the Obama administration has overseen unprecedented deficits, acquiring $2.7 trillion during their last two years. However, rising stock prices reflect optimism in investors. Stock prices are determined by long-term expectations of profitability than short-run results. Experts are guessing that these changes are a reflection of the changing political outlook. Stockholders were reluctant in the atmosphere created by Obama's higher taxes and health care regulations and the ability to adopt basically whatever economic policy they choose. With Republican victories likely, predictions are for a more favorable business environment and a better economy.

Some hard statistics are able to back up these assumptions. The probability of a Republican majority in Congress is provided daily by Intrade, which is basically a market that has proven to be remarkably accurate in predicting past election outcomes. Intrade along with the Rasmussen Daily Tracking Poll, which reports on the approval percentages of Mr. Obama, show that the ups and downs of the stock market coincide well with these measures. For instance, the Dow Jones Industrial Average hit bottom on March 5, 2009, when Obama had been in office for just two months. Conversely, this year the stock market reached a peak of 11,205 when anti-Democratic sentiment was reaching its highest. Could be a good couple of years should the Republicans take over.

Whatever works.

The British government announced this past week the steepest set of spending cuts in decades. They intend to cut departments budgets by close to twenty percent and eliminate five-hundred thousand jobs in the public sector, all in the hopes of healing the country's deficit problems. Many in London are highly critical of the move, but some analysts in the United States have begun to question whether or not it might be a good idea to do the same. The move would surely create outrage in the U.S., but it would appear that drastic actions might be needed to save the economy rather than the slow and steady strategy being used by Obama's administration. One thing to note, however, is the fact that Britain's economy is one-fifth the size of America's, meaning that the budget cuts that needing to be proposed on Capitol Hill would dwarf those implemented in Britain. The director of the Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom at the conservative Heritage Foundation, Nile Gardiner says that "the Obama administration is showing no appetite whatsoever" in doing what the British are doing.

Experts have been noting that should Republicans regain Congressional dominance, they may be inspired by what the British are doing. The British cuts at this point look to about $130 billion from the budget by 2015. If the United States were to cut a similar percentage, the cuts would total about $450 billion. However, Gardiner estimated that in order for the cuts to be successful, they would need to total $650 million by 2015. Insane? Of course. But it just might be insane enough to work. Clearly the slow and steady route isn't working, so just cut the infected limb off all together. Problem solved. Actually, that sounded pretty stupid... And of course this will have about .0000001% chance of passing based on the majority of people working in the public sector.

SF Giants. 2010 National League Champs. World Series bound.

The iffy exit plan.

The war in Afghanistan entered a new and possibly decisive stage a week ago, following requests by American leaders for Afghanistan's elected officials to come to a settlement with Taliban leaders to end the war. The Americans had even assisted Taliban leaders in making it to meetings. Coupled with increased and heavier attacks by American and NATO forces, it is believed that American leaders are attempting to force the Taliban into an agreement by putting them in a diminished position. Leaders are skeptical that the settlements will be agreed upon by all Taliban leaders, or if the officials are just going to end up making deals with individual commanders. However, it's possible that these efforts might just fail and the American troops with just have to withdraw again next year with fewer prospects for a successful end.

Neither of the last two commander's in Afghanistan, Generals McChrystal and Petraeus, made the point of saying that the objective was to destroy the Taliban. Rather, they pointed out that it was an attempt to break their will, to break up their movements, and to settle with as many leaders as were willing to deal. That particular strategy appears similar to the one that brought Petraeus great success in Iraq. After American leaders negotiated with insurgent leaders in Iraq in 2007, the violence dropped dramatically. It may be that they hope to accomplish the same here. However, the number of ordinance being sent at the insurgents has increased by half of the original amount since negotiations were announced. Seeing as how one can expect some Taliban leaders to go back on their agreements and for their soldiers to defect, sounds like blowing them all to smithereens if they don't accept peace is a decent plan.

Problems aplenty.

For the upcoming elections, it would appear that one piece of news is all the rage: the splintering of the Republican Party into the moderates and the Tea Party. There's a lot of talk about tensions between the establishment and their new trouble-maker of a child. But then again, it can't really be all that bad. They could be the Democrats. Tensions between President Obama and his own party have become apparent. In a recent interview with the Rolling Stone, President Obama took aim at those in his party that he sees as abandoning ship: "It is inexcusable for any Democrat or progeressive right now to stand on the sidelines in this midterm election... People need to shake off this lethargy, people need to buck up... If people now want to take their ball and go home, that tells me folks weren't serious [about change] in the first place." So basically, in short, the President decided that instead of being the repsonsible leader and trying to pull his party back in, he was going to start a little high-schoolesque drama.

Mr. Obama must not have gone to school as a child (relax, I'm not making any accusations toward his place of birth and education thereof), because if children learn anything growing up, it's that if you want someone to be friends with you, you're better off not trashing them. He went with the old sports coach technique, if you're not willing to play the game, go home. Unfortunately for him, not everybody enjoys athletic competition. The response from his own party has been pretty ferocious, making it seem like their President has let them down. One fellow leftist even went so far as to say it's a tactic to shift the blame should the election not go their way (There was also something about "hippie-punching," but that one's over my head). It's fairly clear that the Democratic party isn't in a much better position than the Republicans, as thirty-nine, yes, thirty-nine, Democrats voted with the Republicans against the decision to adjourn in the House. Coach Obama, you've got some issues you might want to look after.

Just a little flavor of the elections around the nation.

Show some emotion.

A recent article in the Wall Street Journal explained the current situation that our President is in. As Obama was in the middle of a town hall meeting on Monday, September the twentieth, a woman stood up to speak to him. The woman can be described as a dignified African American, and appears to be what she is, an Obama supporter from 2008. It appeared as though she would give Obama an easy question, but instead she dropped a bombshell, explaining that she was exhausted of defending him and his administration, and she was disappointed with where they were. Being the cool, detached President that he is, Obama responded by listing all of his achievements, such as tuition assistance (really?), and health care. True to his form, Obama was once again off-topic.

The word that sticks out most out of what the woman said would have to be "exhausted." And as far as I can see, it would appear that most Democrats are exhausted. It seems even they can get tired of waiting for the change they were promised. The battle between the Democrats and the Republicans can pretty much be described as the battle between the burnt out and the revved up. It has been noted that voters are attending rallies with something new. Information. They have in their hands, fresh from the internet, copies of bills and roll call votes. With the internet, it is now impossible for the government to escape the eyes of the people as often as they used to. And as much as I hate, HATE, the Tea Party, they're not stupid. They're just angry. Which is more emotion than Obama has ever shown.

Mind games.

I couldn't really decide on a single topic for tonight's blog, so as I looked through Wall Street Journal, The San Francisco Chronicle, The Sac Bee, and various news websites (mostly BBC), I settled on basing this blog on pretty much nothing. Nothing in particular that is. I'll start with the attempted repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." This week, the Republicans stopped the bill from passing in the Senate, though it has already passed the House. Led by Sen. McCain, the Republicans said the issue should wait for the outcome of a Pentagon survey of service members on the repeal. The Republicans see the bill as a political ploy, based on some of the amendments involved. One such amendment would grant citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants if they graduate from high school and spend two years in college or the military. The Democrats argue that it could strengthen the military, but the Republicans have called it out as a ploy by the Senator that propsed it to graner votes in his heavily Hispanic district. Which, if I were to think about it, which I did, does make some sense. A bill that is centered on the military equality of gays shouldn't really have included a section about immigration, should it? I'm all for the repeal of the law, truly I am. Anyone that is willing to risk their life for the country is good in my book, but drop all the political BS and pass the bill. On a sidenote, Obama promised to have this issue settled a while ago. Woops.

In other news, just in case anyone hasn't noticed, there's a new thing called the Tea Party. The TP is group of what are basically anti-government, and perhaps anti-just-about-everything. Sarah Palin jumped on as a "founder," though in reality she's just along for the ride. A Republican senator from South Carolina has also joined in, and has begun running his own group of Partier's, going against his own party members. The new Party members have begun causing problems for the Republicans, creating issues in the primaries. The result could be a very unmanageable GOP, one which might be divided on grounds as simple as spending bills. The problems could spread to war, Medicare, and Social Security. Love'em or hate'em, they're here to stay for at least a little while. And yes Democrats, you can love them too, as they might just swing the Independent votes in your favor.

Lastly, the "President" of Iran made another scathing speech about American capitalism and the evil Israelis. He ended up preaching to what was basically an empty room at the UN. But what else is new, right?

And now for a completely unrelated political funny.

P.S. - Sorry for any errors, I was exhausted while writing this as I was in the midst of a family emergency.

Leaving them out to dry.

A lawsuit was filed by the American Civil Liberties Union and the Center for Constitutional Rights, claiming that Obama was too much like President G.W. Bush when it came to targeted killing of terrorists. The focus of the lawsuit is the alleged targeting of an American citizen, Anwar al-Awlaki, but it has been indicated that their objections are more wide-ranging. They object to treating the whole world as a battlefield (which they feel both presidents have done), to lethal actions outside of accepted theaters of conflict, and to the killing of individuals who do not represent an imminent threat. Legal scholars do not give the suit much of a chance, and the administration gave a robust defense of its actions through a speech by the State department's top lawyer.

So, in essence, the actions were approved as legal, and authorized by the President. Sounds solid. However. In a major disconinuity between the administrations, Obama allowed his attorney general to disclose classified details of one of Bush's anti-terror operations (actions of which were deemed legal and authorized), and to reopen investigations of CIA officers involved. This is not about the release of interrgotaion techniques (of which waterboarding was publicly disclosed by the CIA, and NOT used). The argument can then be made that the exposing of a previously authorized program was done on a purely political agenda. This bothers me, because the CIA has (technically) the authorization to do things that no one else is asked or is able to do, and that should not change along iwth an administration. When CIA officers agree to do these things we don't know about, they believe they are entering into a contract with the government, not the current administration. In order for those officers to perform to the best of their abilities and with the most zeal, they must be able to be confident that they will not be thrown under the bus by way of a new President. Personally, I believe that nothing done by the CIA should be disclosed, as it almost always deals with national security, and make that public is ridiculous. It's no wonder that senior CIA officials are now asking for more legal guarantees concerning the secrecy of their operations. I support that idea, and am completely against the need of one administration to sabotage the operatons of the last. Doing that creates a lack of trust with our most important intelligence force, and that's just irresponsible.