Age of Turbulence and Questions

So I've been able to knock off reading from the book Age of Turbulence by Alan Greenspan. Greenspan, I hope as everyone knows, was the Chairman of the Federal Reserve for a long period of time and involved in many of the underlying economic decisions of this country since even before he was sworn in as Chairman. I can't really go into too much detail about all the parts I love in this book because it's highly economic based, but I do think I got the answer to one question that everyone seems to know the answer to one way or the other, but no one knows why. That question is why was Bill Clinton a good President? Most of the answers to this are along the lines of "he was outstanding and look at the economic boom we had while he was in office" or "he was terrible and used a cigar for something other than smoking." Most people don't have a clue why he was great or why they think he was terrible, but I think I finally found my answer in the way Greenspan recounts their interactions throughout the years. First, Clinton made many promises throughout his campaign that were lofty and would cost a lot of money. When Clinton met with Greenspan on their first meeting, Greenspan recalls one meeting that was highly intellectual. Clinton asked poignant questions and really grasped the advice of the Chairman. The advice was in a nutshell, the government had to curb spending, all his campaign promises would cost a lot of money, but for the long term economic health of the country, the government needed to put the brakes on deficit spending that marked the Reagan years. In the coming years. Clinton understood the big picture, and despite being painted by Republicans as a liberal, the most important first decisions of fiscal conservatism were carried out by him. This action along with the action of the fed paved the wave for the technological change and explosive growth that we came to know in the 90's. Essentially, a President was able to be intelligent, take advice of an adviser closest to the action and make something happen. It's apparent from Greenspan that this was the total opposite of the current Bush Administration. While our budget surplus grew and grew throughout the late 90's and early 2000's, Greenspan continued to support fiscal conservatism with Clinton to a point where early in the Bush Administration the Fed was actually worrying about a government surplus. This paved the way for rhetoric leading to the Bush Tax Cut. While he supported a tax cut, Greenspan was not happy about the way this tax cut took place because the discussion did not focus on the fiscal conservatism that got to this point, but rather took a highly politicized route. Further, the administration was stubborn in their spending that when renewed estimates about the budget came out, spending remained high while tax cuts continued. The work of Clinton and Greenspan over the course of 8 years had been undone by an irresponsible Congress and President.

On another note, the book is extremely readable even if you aren't an economics major or know the slightest thing about economics.

Novels or Questions?

Dave, the legendary party spot host that we addressed in a few blogs asked, "How would your fix the primary process so that states could still receive individual attention from their candidates while making sure that every vote has equal weight in determining a nominee and also do you think that my frustrations will be shared by many and if so, how might this feeling of disenfranchisement affect Republican turnout in the general election?"

First off, calling me a "liberal ass" is extremely ignorant considering I continuously promote a conservative economic policy. Just because I support some more progressive issues out there, does not make me a liberal ass. To address the first question, it is apparent our primary process needs a fix as judged the number of states that illegally moved their primaries to try to be a greater factor in the process. I think the primary process should be selected arbitrarily with 10 states being selected in 5 bi-weekly voting blocks. A random drawing will draw 10 states together before each Presidential primary process two weeks before the first primary. Here are my two main reasons.

1. It will allow each state their own fair allotment of time over 2 weeks. Candidates will have to choose which states they campaign for all the time prior to the "draft." This allows them to pick which states they believe will be important (one's with more delegates obviously), but gives smaller states 2 weeks of time split between 10 states.

2. States can no longer argue since it's luck of the draw and in the next election, they might be the first up. I think it adds some more fun to the process too that can really get people engaged in the political process. If more people are interested in the process, we get a more democratic election.

The fact is that everyone will have a complaint about any process we choose, but I certainly think that having the same states decide every single time is ludicrous. McCain would probably not be in this if it wasn't for his win in little New Hampshire of all places.

To the second part of your question, I think voter turnout will be about the same for Republicans, but if you get two candidates like McCain-Obama that appeal to moderate, different voters, you will get a big turnout from the moderate demographic.

Adam B. asked "Is the Democratic party going to beat themselves before November?" By this, I mean will this heated battle in the primary campaign between Obama and Clinton be too much of a burden on them when they face a very-beatable John McCain / Huckabee (speculation) in November, or will the winner get a much needed boost into the ultimate campaign?

I think the Democratic Party will lag behind if their process goes all the way to convention. It's just a matter of focus and time rather than a war of words. Obama and Clinton have really been more civilized towards each other for both their interests after heated media and debate battles earlier in the process. What will hurt though is McCain having the entire focus of the Republican party, while I can assume many voters on the Democratic side would feel disengaged and exhausted if their candidate lost a long battle for the nomination.

Adam B. also asked when referring to the NIU shooting "Can these kind of things be stopped on one of the most unprotecting and naive places in a city, a college campus? I have been thinking about this all morning, and I still have no answer as to a solution or means of security. Any thoughts?

My thoughts on these things other than imagining what it would take in someone to really do something like this is how have individuals become so disconnected with one another that we can't stop this on a personal level. I think one trade off of becoming so technologically dependent is our necessity for quickness and society when human relationships are nothing resembling the microwave society we expect. These things really can't be stopped and playing them on the news only furthers the problems like many of the terrible things in the world, but as idealistic as this sounds, this kind of thing would rarely happen if people just connected with their family, friends and other humans. How that happens? You know as well as I do.

Adam B. also asked about the C.C. Sabathia contract talks in Cleveland. My opinion on this whole topic is that I trust the Indians. I think Shapiro had his price and C.C. had his and they were worlds apart. C.C. will likely be gone next year. I believe that the Indians and any baseball team should spend money on pitching if anything. The problem with the Indians is that they don't have the fan support and revenue any more to go throwing $100 million contracts around on one player. That being said, if the Indians are a contender, ride C.C. out and let him redeem himself. If they Indians are not a contender, let's rob the shit out of the Yankees. I've seriously learned my lesson from pitchers like Bartolo Colon. Long term consistency is what makes pitchers great and C.C. isn't there yet. I would, however, take a championship with his help and have him be gone next year, then to hurt our chances in 1 year.

That's correct people, 3 questions in one comment on 3 different topics from one Adam B.

Keith J. asked "Do you think that the Cavs have any chance to win an NBA title this season?"

I may shock people with this answer, but I do believe we can win a title. I put the odds at something like 60 to 1, but I think out of 60 times, we should win 1. I think people underestimate Lebron in this league. He single-handedly dismantled Detroit last year. He runs the show and he always shows up in the playoffs. The Cavs have beat Boston twice this year. We have been playing solid despite having 2 of our better players gone for most of the season, and I think Lebron would own Detroit in a seven game series. Against the West, it would just be a matter of match ups against the right team. There are teams in the West that we play great against, and other's that we don't. We can't beat the Suns, Rockets, or Spurs in a seven game series ever ever ever. We would have a shot against the Lakers or Jazz, and I'm not sure about the Mavs. I would probably say we can't beat them if I had to pick. The fact is though that the chances are slim because the team is basically Lebron and his bums. We need to clean out the bums and bring in one star to replace Hughes and a solid point guard to become a consistent contender year in and year out. With our potential in James we should have 5 rings by the end of his career if he stays here.

Mike Z. asked two questions:

1. Where do you think Terrelle Pryor will go to college and why?
Here is what I think he should think about his options.
Oregon--an athletic Vince Young like QB in Dennis Dixon just had tremendous success and a potential national championship before his injury. I like Oregon.
Penn State--I would have a 4 year starting ticket and could bring glory back to a program that hasn't been a force in the Big 10 for a while. I'm closer to home, but I'm choosing this over two better programs at Michigan and OSU
Michigan--I'm heading to play for a coach that just had his actions define what kind of character he is. I'll probably end up on the cover of ESPN not for my play, but for violating NCAA rules. They have lost to OSU 4 straight years, but I could bring back the glory to this team and begin building the program from scratch.
OSU-They have been embarrassed in two straight title games, but have nevertheless been there. A mobile QB with an arm like Troy Smith had great success here along with the Heisman. This team recruits the best OL in the land, so I'll always have protection. Todd Boeckman looks like Charlie Frye compared to me, but the coach may still have me wait a year.

Moral of the story-he's picking Oregon or OSU for the above reasons, but I'm going to side with my heart here and say OSU can have hope for the next 4 years as it tries to avenge itself against the SEC because this QB is going to OSU.


2. Who won the Tiff beer pong tournament? I totally forgot.
To this I say, are you going to brag in 70 years?

Finally, Tyler from the city of Brotherly Love said "I would love to know your opinion on this years dunk contest along with your top 5 dunk contest dunks of all time."

I really enjoyed this year's dunk contest because I thought it was the revenge of Dwight Howard who got completely shafted out of last year's contest. His dunk last year was a sticker on one hand of his face that he put high on the backboard and then dunked. It was extremely creative and still a good dunk, but the judges didn't like it so out in round 1. This year he kept up the creativity and did some great dunks. The volleyball tap off the backboard was his best dunk followed by the behind the basket dunk (if he makes it first try it's the most difficult dunk in history. I also like when a star wins because it makes it more memorable. I hate players that win this and are extremely forgettable. The best dunkers should be in every competition, but there has to be a great balance with the best players. Who would not be thrilled to watch a dunk contest with Lebron, Kobe, Vince Carter, Dwight Howard?

I'll get to the second part of this question after some research.