The Half Baked Lunatic

The star studded 1983 movie "The Big Chill” was about a weekend reunion of a bunch of old college friends – now in their early 30’s – who all get together for the funeral of Alex, one of their classmates who committed suicide. The movie is poignant, intelligent, very funny, and somewhat disturbing all the same time. It’s about rekindling old friendships, coping with the shock of their friend Alex’s death, and wondering what happened to the social idealism that they all shared when they attended the University of Michigan in the late 60’s. They were all anti-establishment, idealistic, smart, enthusiastic, with a vocal desire to change the world and make it a better place. Alex, now deceased, was a charismatic science major. Everyone thought he was the most intelligent one of the bunch – and their mutual friendship really survived through the years because of him. He was the glue that kept them all together, but he was never able to get his own life straightened out. Now, in 1983, they realize they are becoming the conservative “establishment” that they protested against in college.  They are all relatively secure financially, and on upward career paths – so they can’t even blame each other for “selling out” as they are all equally guilty. It’s an excellent story, a wonderful cast, with an infectious late 60’s hit-filled soundtrack.  Let’s get to know the characters a little bit: Sarah (Glenn Close) is a physician, and married to ... Harold (Kevin Kline), who is a business executive. We find out that Sarah had an affair with Alex at one time, but Harold has forgiven her. Chloe (Meg Tilly) – Alex's young girlfriend. She is the only “outsider”, not part of the college group. Alex and Chloe had been living at Sarah and Harold’s home for some time before he slashed his wrists in their bathroom. Sam (Tom Berenger) had been a vocal protestor in college but is now a Hollywood star, somewhat reminiscent of Tom Selleck. He is now divor... [More]

  A good friend of mine forwarded the following email to me the other day.  Now, before I begin, this friend is one of the smartest people I know.  He is the CEO of a rapidly growing company, introducing successful new products into the marketplace even in this economy. He is a vocal Republican, so all I ever heard from him for about 20 years was that “it’s the Democrats fault” when referring to ANY problems in the world.  I’m neither democrat nor republican, so it's never bothered me any. But then, halfway through the second term of the Bush administration, he swung around and admitted that maybe it’s not ALL the Democrats fault, the Republicans need to take some part of the blame for the state of the world’s affairs. And horror of horrors, he hesitantly (accidentally?) said some positive remarks towards Obama during the election (but really, I think it was more of an anti-McCain sentiment than anything, in one email he said “clearly McCain is an even worse war monger than Bush, very scary.  I bet he never met a weapon he didn't buy.”) However, he’s back to his lovable anti-Democrat rant, and has been forwarding some very snide, and occasionally humorous, emails.  The most recent one he forwarded is what prompted this blog posting: Dear Employees: As the CEO of this organization, I have resigned myself to the fact that  Barrack Obama is our President and that our taxes and government fees will increase in a BIG way. To compensate for these increases, our prices would have to increase by about 10%.  But since we cannot increase our prices right now due to the dismal state of the economy, we will have to lay off six of our employees instead. This has really been bothering me since I believe we are family here and I didn't know how to choose who would have to go.. So, this is what I decided. I walked through our parking lots and found six 'Obama' bumper stickers on o... [More]

There is absolutely NO WAY that any kind of a mortgage bailout will be fair.  The people who would benefit from mortgage assistance are generally the ones least likely to deserve it. Hardest hit are people who either bought a bigger house than they could really afford, and people who snagged one of those great “no money down” loans.  Are YOU willing to subsidize someone who is living in a luxurious home they shouldn’t have been able to afford in the first place?  Is that the kind of behavior that we are trying to encourage? Absolutely not! While I do have great sympathy for someone who is losing their home after 20 or 30 years, let’s look at the reality of who this might be: Assume someone bought a house twenty years ago, with a conventional 30 year fixed rate mortgage and a 20% down payment.  At the time, the national average home price was just about $75,000 (not inflation adjusted).  Our example homeowner has been paying on their mortgage for twenty years – and even with a fairly high 9% fixed rate loan, the payments are only $483 a month (not including taxes and insurance).  If they’ve kept up on their payments, they now owe $38,000 on a home that is worth at least $200,000 – which is the average value of our example home today, after the latest downturn in prices.  How in the world could their mortgage be in trouble?  Our example homeowner should be able to afford a mortgage payment of $483 a month, even if they are living on a salary of $25,000 per year. And although the value of their home has dropped some $50,000 in the last two years, they should still have over $150,000 in equity. “But”, you say, “they probably re-financed along the way, or they took out a home equity loan, so they actually owe a lot more than this ...” EXACTLY MY POINT – we are not bailing out their mortgage, we are bailing out the cash that they took out of their home and spent on who knows what ... vacations, cars, impulsive shopping, an... [More]

It sure is interesting living in Washington D.C. I’m not talking about the inauguration yesterday, which was spectacular by the way – but in general, you just can’t get away from politics here. The latest issue that’s getting my goat is this idiotic push to make Washington DC the 51st state.  The DC license plates proudly proclaim “Taxation without Representation” and there are posters all over the city pushing for DC statehood. The underlying issue is the fact that DC has no representation in congress.  Some residents feel that our voice isn’t heard because of this, so we shouldn’t be subject to federal income taxes. HOGWASH, I say! I got to vote in the presidential election. We get MORE than our fair share of government funding, with free museums, monuments that are managed by National Park rangers, and we benefit from just about every federally sponsored program you can imagine. And since there is no “state” government here, all the D.C. laws that are above the “city” level go through congress for approval. I don’t feel under-represented in the slightest. Quite the contrary, in fact. There was a reason why the founding fathers wisely decided to make the District of Columbia a “neutral” area.  As the nation’s capital, we have a responsibility to treat ALL the states equally. It works quite well, thank you very much.  And just think of the cost and extra overhead that it would add.  The city bureaucracy is outlandish as it is. Can you imagine adding yet ANOTHER layer of useless politics on top of that? And changing the nation’s flag and all the textbooks – just to appease a few people that want to have SOMETHING to complain about?  Frankly, it’s such a bad idea I can’t even imagine what these people are thinking. District of Columbia Mayor Adrian Fenty (who I have met, by the way – pleasant chap)... [More]

  Tax reform is coming - again (and again, and again!)  It seems that every few years, the government realizes that the tax code is broken and they make a bunch of changes to "fix" it. More precisely, they usually ADD a bunch of new laws, making the labyrinth of regulations so complex that not even the trustiest and experienced of tax advisors can really say what's what anymore. There are three tax laws that, in my opinion, should be first on the chopping block: The Alternative Minimum Tax This is one of the least popular (if ANY tax law can be considered "popular") regulations on the books.  It came about in 1970 as a way to make sure that the wealthy paid some minimum tax, no matter how many deductions they were able to scrape up. It was, from the start, a half baked idea - and the regulations have gotten so complex over the years as the laws are patched to fill in the loopholes that a small number of taxpayers still manage to take advantage of.  The result is a ridiculous accounting overhead - almost everyone who is approaching middle-class or above needs to watch out for the dreaded AMT. Really, how much does the nation overall spend with accountants and software engineers to program all the laws into tax software? Fix the regular tax code, and get rid of this piece of garbage and everyone will be happier. $3,000 limit for capital losses Unfair, I tell you - it's just downright unfair! (I'm taking off my shoe and pounding it on the table now). Individuals are taxed on all capital gains, with no limits - but when the tide turns and they have losses, you can only deduct $3,000 of such losses per year.  That was probably a fair amount in the 1960's, but for today's economy the number should be more like $300,000 - at least! Passive Activity It's amazing that the "Tax... [More]

  I've done a lot of media licensing in my life.  A lot .... hit songs, video clips, still images (including a picture of Elvis Presley once, that was fun). I'm fairly up to date on licensing laws and procedures, and I have a high regard for artists rights. And I certainly wouldn't dream of using someone's copyrighted material in a national advertisement without their permission.  So why is John McCain trying to sue Jackson Browne after he used "Running on Empty" without permission?  This is just plain stupid: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27820970 Basically, McCain's campaign used Jackson Browne's hit song "Running on Empty" in an ad that targeted Obama's energy plan.  Jackson Browne sued, rightfully so, stating that 1) McCain didn't have rights and 2) the usage created a "false association or endorsement". Now, McCain is counter-suing Jackson Browne.  In his suit, he derides the song (saying it's old with a title that's an acknowledged cliché. Which is pathetic considering that McCain is old - and an acknowledged cliché), he's claiming that the "false association or endorsement" rules only apply to commercial speech, not political speech (that's just crazy), and he actually wants Jackson Browne to pay for monetary damages - claiming that Jackson Browne has interfered with HIS free speech! Huh??? In the initial lawsuit, Jackson Browne was asking for $75,000 in damages which is probably a little high - I would say that $50K is probably appropriate (but some artists would have been greedy and asked for a few hundred thou).  But over all, it's not that much for McCain and it's less than half of what the Republican Party spent on Palin's campaign wardobe ... Even if his claims had any basis (I don't believe they do - I can't believe he'll win thi... [More]

  Americans are spoiled. We want to have a semi-socialist government that provides entitlements and health care, but no one wants higher taxes to pay for it. We want high wages, but then we complain when everyone buys cheap foreign made goods. We're straddled with trillions of dollars of debt, and no one wants to raise taxes to pay for it. We want it all, and we don't want to pay for it.  Spoiled. Something has to give! Believe me, I think our taxes are too high as it is and I don't want to pay any more - especially when the money is being spent on an idiotic war that has no end in sight, on a bailout which has very little chance of saving our debt driven economy, and social programs that give freebies to people that really don't contribute much in return. But let's be realistic. For 150 years, we've gone back and forth, trying to decide how and how much to tax to make things "equitable".  Let's face it - there is no "fair" system of taxation! If you tax everyone at the same rate (a flat tax), then it puts a higher burden on poor people. A higher tax on the wealthy (a progressive tax) is even more unfair, plus it stifles the economy and decreases the ability for successful businesses to hire more people.  Around and around and around we go. In the meantime, we've kept taxes relatively low and expenses high. What a great combination - everyone wins!!!!  We just put it on a credit card and pay for it later!  I would love to see us on a path to eliminate personal income taxes.  Completely eliminate them.  I agree with the many studies that show that personal income taxes are mostly wasted on government bureaucracy, and we can fund the entire country's operations on corporate taxes, consumption taxes, property taxes, and the like. BUT - we have a huge debt obligation to pay off before we can get there, and this debt is t... [More]

  For the last two days, I've seen numerous reports calling for job seekers to submit their resume's on Obama's website www.Change.gov I'm a seasoned manager with great credentials.  I have very few skeletons in my closet, and as an added bonus I am currently living in Washington D.C.  So I've decided to give it a try.  I filled out the "expression of interest" form last night.  Lest you think I'm doing this as a joke - I'm not.  Although I don't really NEED a job at this point, I would seriously consider the opportunity if I manage to get through the vetting process. I'm curious if they'll even respond to my "expression of interest" (that's such a politically correct way of stating it.  Hmmph.)  An MSNBC news report published today says that administration applicants will go through the most "extensive and invasive" application process ever.  They will review all blogs, facebook profiles (I'm assuming other profiles, such as LinkedIn, as well), and they will pretty much grill everyone you've ever known in your entire life.  Well, this is as it should be. While some of my social views might be too liberal for even the Democrats, and my financial opinions might be considered conservative for some Republicans, I have nothing to hide and I am a stickler for honest and ethical behavior (and I'm not just saying that for the FBI guys that are probably already reading this post ).  The question is, would they even consider someone who's blog is called "The Half Baked Lunatic"?  Hey, if the "Motley Fool" can become a highly rated and respected financial site, then I should at least have a chance.  There's gotta be SOMEONE out there with a sense of humor! Of course, if they do respond, I probably will not be at liberty to discuss... [More]

  It's time for the press to stop bringing up Barack Obama's race whenever his name is mentioned.  It's only been one day, and it's already getting tiring. For one thing, Obama is bi-racial.  His mother was white and his father was African American. But that doesn't matter.  What matters is whether or not he is the right person for the job.  I don't give a rats ass if he's green, pink, tan, black, or bluish purple. Yes, it is a big deal to be the first obviously bi-racial president - I'm not denying that (reportedly, there have been others, but they were "mostly white"). In any event, the leadup to this election has been in the works for a long time.  At one point, in some city, we must have had the first black mayor. And I'm sure that was big news at the time.  I'm not sure who/when/where it was - but no one bats an eye anymore when a black man (or woman, or Chinese, or Indian) is elected as mayor, governor, congressman, or senator.  Also, lets not forget that a black woman, Condoleezza Rice, is currently fourth in line for the presidency (if the President, Vice President, and the Speaker of the House all go down in a plane at the same time) ... in a republican administration! There's one other factor that I really think also had a hand in making it possible for the country to accept a minority president - the TV show "24".  This is an extremely popular show, with a black president for a few seasons (David Palmer, played by Dennis Haysbert).  The character was portrayed as a very good president - strong and intelligent, politically savvy, with exceedingly impeccable ethics. He was very believable and very likeable, and I think he portrayed an image that viewers of the show easily accepted as what they'd like to see in a president.  Granted, Obama was elected on his own strengths - but maybe a po... [More]

The Bush administration will go down in history as one of the worst - make that the absolute worst - in U.S. history.

George Bush Senior should whip the president's ass with a ping pong paddle for making such a mess of things. In public.

In the last 8 years, [More]