It's Like A Weed, Man... (The Mortgage Meltdown, Part Four of Seven)

[* The series as it unfolds:

1. You Unmitigated Bastards
2. What The Fuck Are Fannie Mae And Freddie Mac, Anyway?
3. Community Organizing
4. It's Like A Weed, Man
5. A House Built Upon The Sand...
6. And Like That House, Down It Goes
7. None Of You Is Fit To Lead

*]

An update before we begin: As of now, the bailout is DOA. The House voted it down 228-205; there will no doubt be another bill quietly circulating to do the same thing in a few days. I will keep you posted.

Thanks to Mounting pressure from the Clinton Administration and ACORN, the secondary mortgage market, and sales of mortgage-backed securities, absolutely exploded during the late 1990's and the first years of the new millennium.

Nothing seemed to stop it; in fact, events just seemed to conspire to make the situation worse. In the wake of 9/11, an effort by the Federal Reserve to stimulate the economy and avoid recession - a drop in the prime rate - was disastrous. The prime rate is the interest rate on loans made between the Fed and banks; the Fed dropped this rate to the lowest in decades, and the housing market took off explosively. FNMA quickly became even more of a powerhouse, with FHLMC right behind.

It was also during this time that the MBS-derivatives market, formerly merely a sideline of the secondary mortgage market, expanded into a full-fledged tertiary market of its own; this would later prove devastating at home and abroad.

Trading in derivatives is the Wall Street equivalent of Atlantic City. A trader places an option - essentially a bet - on a specific security, saying that it will rise, or fall, in value in a certain time period. By doing so, using a minuscule percentage of the cost of the future trade (this is called leveraging,) the buyer retains what amounts to "first dibs" on that security at the expected future price.

When the time rolls around, the trader can then sell their right to buy the security to banks, foreign governments, what have you, for more than the cost of the derivative itself.

To make things more interesting, the trader can also reserve the right to sell at a given price, and the price bought or sold at can be the current price, or the future estimated price, or any other number they can convince someone to agree with.

To get even MORE creative, a single trader can take out multiple derivatives from a single security; hedging their bets against any eventuality. For example, let's say a bank issues a "bond" based on the future estimated value of 10,000 home mortgage loans. A trader - without even buying the bonds themselves, and with very little money - can buy derivatives allowing him to sell those bonds at current prices in 6 months or a year in case it goes down; buy them at the NEW price in six months or a year in case it goes down; sell at the new price six months or a year off in case it goes up; and buy at the CURRENT price in a year if it goes up, all at once, on the same bonds he doesn't own, with money he doesn't have.

Then, for fun and profit, he can turn around and sell those derivatives, separately or together, to any buyer he can find, for vast sums of money; the only funds the initial trader risks are the leverage funds he's used to create the derivatives in the first place, a tiny fraction of the value of the derivatives themselves.

This is why the values of the actual mortgages at risk here can be $250 billion, but the derivatives can be worth over 60 TRILLION DOLLARS.

And FNMA and FHLMC were blithely selling MBS derivatives - not just domestically, but to foreign banks and governments.

The flaw in this practice is NOT the trading of the derivatives themselves; it is, simply, that all too often investors - even banks and governments - count the chickens before they hatch; it is a frightfully common practice (this is the accounting practice, for example, that brought down Enron a few years ago,) to carry derivatives as assets at their EXPECTED future value.

Just like many banks have been counting as assets many, many mortgage loans - at the expected value of those loans upon repayment.

In the case, specifically, of the subprime mortgage meltdown, the derivatives in question are called "Credit Default Swaps," which is a fancy term for a bet on whether the borrowers will bother to repay the loan, or not. In the U.S., the CDS market has a valuation of trillions and trillions of dollars; this is because - basically - the speculators making these bets convinced the banks to take their bets - without a bottom on the liability the banks would hold if the mortgage market crashed. Which leaves the banks holding trillions of dollars in debt to private investors, which is not offset by any actual asset.

This, in fact, is the underlying mechanic by which the crash happened; as more and more defaults and foreclosures started to roll in, banks which had counted on their mortgage portfolios for future value started to go under when it was discovered that their piggy banks were empty, and simultaneously, securities backed by those mortgages became worthless paper - and that made the Credit Default Swaps placed on those securities worth trillions that the banks couldn't repay...

And the first solid signs that this was happening came along in 2003.

[* As promised, here is the information you'll need to contact your Congressional Representatives and Senators about this mess, if you are so inspired. I hope you will. I hope you're furious. I hope you're as furious as I am. I hope you tell them so at great length. Here's the info; enjoy.

U.S. House Of Representatives Member Directory By State

U.S. Senate Member Directory By State

And while I'm at it, the president's email address - I hope he gets a ton of viagra ads - is president@whitehouse.gov, and the Veep is vice_president@whitehouse.gov - so use them wisely and OFTEN. *]

The Presidential Debate!

Rating:	★★★★★
Category:	Other

There are several things that stick with me from this debate.

First, the moment when BOTH Senators used their "memorial bracelets" as political props.

Second, the moment when Senator Obama got owned by Senator McCain - and followed it up by owning HIMSELF.

MCCAIN: The next president of the United States is not going to have to address the issue as to whether we went into Iraq or not. The next president of the United States is going to have to decide how we leave, when we leave, and what we leave behind. That's the decision of the next president of the United States.



Senator Obama said the surge could not work, said it would increase sectarian violence, said it was doomed to failure. Recently on a television program, he said it exceed our wildest expectations.



But yet, after conceding that, he still says that he would oppose the surge if he had to decide that again today. Incredibly, incredibly Senator Obama didn't go to Iraq for 900 days and never



LEHRER: Well, let's go at some of these things...



MCCAIN: Senator Obama is the chairperson of a committee that oversights NATO that's in Afghanistan. To this day, he has never had a hearing.



LEHRER: What about that point?



MCCAIN: I mean, it's remarkable.



LEHRER: All right. What about that point?



OBAMA: Which point? He raised a whole bunch of them.

Of course, since he had a bunch of points to raise about you, Senator. Awesome that you would point that out for us, though.

Third, the fact that Senator Obama said Senator McCain was right nine times, including FIVE "absolutely" right's.

The McCain/Palin campaign has already seized on this for campaign ads:

Now, that's funny.

Here's video of the entire debate.

And here's a handy transcript, minus the "uh's" and stuttering in terror.

Enjoy!

I have to admit I actually laughed openly when Senator Obama owned himself. That was damned funny.

Community Organizing (The Mortgage Meltdown, Part Three Of Seven)

[* The series as it unfolds:

1. You Unmitigated Bastards
   
2. What The Fuck Are Fannie Mae And Freddie Mac, Anyway?
   
3. Community Organizing
   
4. It's Like A Weed, Man
   
5. A House Built Upon The Sand...
   
6. And Like That House, Down It Goes
   
7. None Of You Is Fit To Lead
   

*]

In 1977, the laws regulating banking were forever changed by the addition of a little gem by the name of the Community Reinvestment Act.

You may recall my mention of the updated version of this law in February, in reference to this same topic.

But it's time to go back to its roots.

In its initial form, the CRA was an effort by lawmakers to make sure that "the whole community" could get its credit needs met by banks. It was overwhelmingly opposed by mainstream banking, and passed thanks to enormous lobbying pressure from organizations like the ACLU and ACORN.

Some of you may have heard that name.

The Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now has been - since its founding in 1970 - a massive lobbying house for so-called "housing reform," among the many other pies it has fingers in. It has engaged in practices often seen as questionable, and currently stands accused of fairly substantial voter fraud.

But primarily, the CRA was a weak piece of legislation at the time. It was designed to force banks to extend home loans to low and "moderate" income neighborhoods; it was a big deal, if a bit toothless, and even the EPA got in on the action. The real reason the CRA was basically toothless, however, was not for lack of trying on the part of ACORN and the ACLU; it was because at that time, the banks were not allowed to collect racial data on buyers.

That all changed in 1988. The ACLU and ACORN managed to convince the House and Senate to get plastered enough to amend the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act to not only allow, but REQUIRE, banks to collect racial data on buyers.

The facts came out: lots of poor people are also black.

I know, crazy.

At any rate, the ACLU and ACORN seized upon this dearth of minority home buyers as evidence of bank malfeasance, rather than evidence that people can be too poor to get loans, (WARNING: annoying, slow .pdf,) and immediately started lobbying for "improvements" to the CRA. (This claim was later proven to be false; when the outright lies in the sample data were discovered and eliminated, minority lending was found to be at the same rate as whites.)

Under President Clinton, they got what they'd asked for. In the 1990's, the revised Community Reinvestment Act not only required banks to "provide credit services to their entire communities," as per the original bill, but based the estimation of their compliance with the CRA on the banks' ratings - with ACORN and the ACLU. In fact, ACORN created a lending program across 11 cities to create new loans under CRA in 1993.

Those "improvements" set the stage for disaster. At the time, they made it look good on paper; minority home ownership grew massively during the Clinton years, thanks in part to CRA, and in part to President Clinton's direct push for vastly increased subprime lending; President Clinton helped this along by installing his former advisers (James Johnson, followed by former Budget Director Franklin Raines as CEOs at FNMA,) at the very organizations responsible for backing many of the subprime loans demanded by ACORN under the revamped CRA.

The top priority may be to ask more of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The two companies are now required to devote 42% of their portfolios to loans for low- and moderate-income borrowers; HUD, which has the authority to set the targets, is poised to propose an increase this summer. Although Fannie Mae actually has exceeded its target since 1994, it is resisting any hike. It argues that a higher target would only produce more loan defaults by pressuring banks to accept unsafe borrowers. HUD says Fannie Mae is resisting more low-income loans because they are less profitable.

And as the pressure grew on FNMA and FHLMC, their portfolios began to expand.

That leads into the next part of the series, which means instead of carrying that any farther, it's time to talk about ACORN and Senator Barack Obama - and some more about FNMA, but in different context. Did you know that Franklin Raines, former Budget Director under President Clinton, investigated for fraud while CEO of FNMA, is now one of Senator Obama's campaign advisors? Now you do. This same gentleman, Raines, was also responsible for the downfall of Countrywide Financial, as well.

A company praised - by FNMA - as a "paragon of non-discriminatory lending."

And, of course, there's always the top four recipients of campaign contributions from FNMA and FHLMC: Senator Chris Dodd, Senate Banking Committee Chairman; Senator John Kerry, former Democratic Presidential candidate; Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton; and Senator Barack Obama.

The back, it doth not scratch itself.

So, what about Senator Obama's connections to ACORN?

Well, specifically, Senator Obama served as legal counsel for ACORN's lobbying team in the 1990's; the same lobbying team that got the CRA amended.

He has taken huge donations from them; he has - as a board member of a supposedly non-partisan charitable organization - given them huge grants; they have committed voter fraud on his behalf, and openly endorsed his campaign.

THIS is the "community organizing" that Senator Obama loudly touts as his experience for the Presidency; working to undermine the U.S. housing market. He even teaches an ACORN training seminar annually.

I will, again, give him the benefit of the doubt and say it wasn't done deliberately.

But he not only worked for the organization that revamped CRA to force banks to extend loans to the non-creditworthy; he has also installed a known criminal - specifically, the known criminal directly responsible for the FNMA bailout - as his campaign's finance advisor.

The back, it doth not scratch itself.

But Senators Obama and Dodd, and ACORN sure are scratching each others', now, aren't they?

[* As promised, here is the information you'll need to contact your Congressional Representatives and Senators about this mess, if you are so inspired. I hope you will. I hope you're furious. I hope you're as furious as I am. I hope you tell them so at great length. Here's the info; enjoy.

U.S. House Of Representatives Member Directory By State

U.S. Senate Member Directory By State

And while I'm at it, the president's email address - I hope he gets a ton of viagra ads - is president@whitehouse.gov, and the Veep is vice_president@whitehouse.gov - so use them wisely and OFTEN. *]

What The Fuck Are Fannie Mae And Freddie Mac, Anyway? (The Mortgage Meltdown, Part Two of Seven)

[* The series as it unfolds:

1. You Unmitigated Bastards

*]

Before I begin, a note.

I will give the benefit of the doubt, and say that the architects of the legislation which led to this mess acted out of ignorance, rather than deliberate economic sabotage.

No-one's hands are clean here, which you will see, if you read the whole series.

But the Democrats' mistakes happened first in the timeline.

I am going to treat with events as they happened, and as such it may at first seem like I am giving only the Democrats a rough time. Don't worry; the Republicans will get theirs as the series progresses; it's just that their mistakes have, by and large, been in the last few years.

Again, please don't degenerate into name-calling and rock-throwing. No one individual or group is to blame here - although admittedly some have done more than others to help things along -
and no-one currently in our government is entirely blameless. I am trying to cover things as objectively and thoroughly as possible; in the process, some sacred cows will get slaughtered.

Some of them may be yours.

But because of the massive scope of this series of events, it's likely that everyone's toes will get tromped on to some degree, so I would ask that you please realize that you're not the only one with sore toes, and try to keep the debate civil.

That all said, the roots of this "crisis" are deep indeed; they go back to 1938.

Yeah, 1938.

Fannie Mae - more accurately, the Federal National Mortgage Association - was created in 1938, under President Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

President Three Names was looking for a way to re-capitalize the mortgage market following its collapse in the Great Depression. FNMA was created - basically - to loan federal money to banks, which could then be used for home loans, the idea being that it wouldn't cost the taxpayer "too much" and would allow a new wave of home ownership.

FNMA originally acted as a sort of bank for the banks; it loaned money at very low interest rates to the banks, which then used that money to provide low-rate mortgages to prospective homeowners. This basically created what we now call the "secondary" mortgage market, that being trading in the ownership of the loans themselves - both the home loans, and the BANKING loans.

This allows FNMA to make a profit - just recently, a MASSIVE profit - on the difference between the interest paid by the homeowners and banking customers of FNMA, and the rate FNMA had to pay on the money it borrowed from foreign investment bankers and governments.

That last sentence should clue you in that the "Buy America!" game has been playing for a long time.

In fact, FNMA was a huge budget item, and despite the fact that it was profitable, it was also overly complicated and required lots of work every year. President Lyndon Johnson solved this in typical fashion for him, by severing the Gordian knot of regulation with the sword of privatization, setting FNMA up as a "government - sponsored entity," or GSE. You'll be hearing that term a lot. At this time, FNMA STOPPED being the guarantor of government-backed mortgages, and became exclusively a secondary-market trader. The responsibility for government-backed mortgages was then transferred to ANOTHER new federal agency, called "Ginnie Mae," short for Government National Mortgage Association.

Being a GSE gave FNMA a board of directors and shareholders like any other publicly traded corporation, but with the added benefit of built-in bailouts; backed by the government, but not subject to it, FNMA was able to execute trades and deals that other banking entities could not, because the government - that means the TAXPAYER - was bound by the same law that privatized FNMA to support it with tax money. The deal gave FNMA tax-exempt status, and a permanent exemption from banking regulations.

Whoa.

Government interference in the free market to begin with, FNMA had become a monopoly on the secondary mortgage market that had been created by FNMA in the first place; now, it was cut loose to operate without supervision, without any return to the taxpayer, and without having to follow the same laws as other lenders.

So, since monopolies are obviously inherently bad and should be shot on sight, or some such thing, President Nixon then made things worse by adding yet another GSE to the mix: "Freddie Mac," the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation. At this point, both FNMA and FHLMC began selling what are called "mortgage-backed securities," (MBS) which function essentially like municipal bonds, only they're backed by mortgage loans, instead of future tax revenues.

FNMA and FHLMC quickly took over roughly 90% of the secondary mortgage market, holding combined debt between them currently equivalent to 46% of the national debt, approximately $2, 665, 569, 360, 000 - that's right, over TWO TRILLION DOLLARS - becoming the only two Fortune 500 companies that are not required to inform the public about financial difficulties they may be having, and with built-in guaranteed bailouts by you and I.

Can you see where we're going, yet?

[* As promised, here is the information you'll need to contact your Congressional Representatives and Senators about this mess, if you are so inspired. I hope you will. I hope you're furious. I hope you're as furious as I am. I hope you tell them so at great length. Here's the info; enjoy.

U.S. House Of Representatives Member Directory By State

U.S. Senate Member Directory By State

And while I'm at it, the president's email address - I hope he gets a ton of viagra ads - is president@whitehouse.gov, and the Veep is vice_president@whitehouse.gov - so use them wisely and OFTEN. *]

You Unmitigated Bastards: The Mortgage Meltdown, Part One Of Seven

A note before I begin: the reason for a SEVEN PART posting on this issue is two-fold. First, it keeps the chunks small enough that I can actually attempt to post them in my limited free time, and second, it prevents your head from exploding with boredom. So, please, bear with me.

Because the story of Horatio Bunce and Davy Crockett has more relevance today than it may at first seem, I will share it with you as an introductory section to my series on this ongoing, engineered meltdown.

"A'way back when,"

my father began,

"there was a feller by the name of Davy Crockett; you may've heard of 'im."

I nodded.

"Well, this feller Crockett was genr'lly c'nsidered t' be a decent enough sort; well-spoken, well-thought-of; and he spent some time in Congress.
"Now, y'see, ol' Crockett had voted on a bill to help out some folks's homes had got burned up in a fire; not too fur gone f'm the kind of thing Congress mos'ly goes in fur now. Well, Mr. Crockett had come up fur re-election, and so he tuck out on horseback to ride up and down in his district, so's to drum up support.

"'Long the way, he noticed a feller plowin' a field, and stopped to glad-hand 'im; but the farmer warn't havin' any of it, and said he wasn't voting for Crockett.

"But further, he went on t' say that ol' Crockett either didn't understand the Constitution, or had no honor to defend it with, and either way warn't a fit representative, 'least not of that farmer.

"You can bet that-all didn't sit well with ol' Crockett, who asked the farmer why.

"That ol' farmer told Crockett 'twas that bill for the fire that done it; he said that Crockett could give his own money away all he wanted, but had no right to give away tax dollars to charity.

"Now, I'm keepin' this short, y'understand, but the upshot of it all is he convinced Crockett, and Crockett promised to tell everyone he talked to that he'd done wrong, and why, and that he was sorry; and Crockett did it, and won that farmer's vote.

"That farmer's name was Horatio Bunce, and there ain't hardly a schoolbook to be had that'll tell you that story; but I'd bet you can find it somewheres, if'n you look."

And I did.

The story appears as the essay "Sockdolager" in the book The Life of Colonel David Crockett by Edward R. Ellis, who was privileged to know Colonel Crockett himself.

His version follows.

     CROCKETT was then the lion of Washington. I was a great admirer of his character, and, having several friends who were intimate with him, I found no difficulty in making his acquaintance. I was fascinated with him, and he seemed to take a fancy to me.

     I was one day in the lobby of the House of Representatives when a bill was taken up appropriating money for the benefit of a widow of a distinguished naval officer. Several beautiful speeches had been made in its support -- rather, as I thought, because it afforded the speakers a fine opportunity for display than from the necessity of convincing anybody, for it seemed to me that everybody favored it. The Speaker was just about to put the question when Crockett arose. Everybody expected, of course, that he was going to make one of his characteristic speeches in support of the bill. He commenced:

     "Mr. Speaker -- I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased, and as much sympathy for the sufferings of the living, if suffering there be, as any man in this House, but we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for a part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living. I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has no power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member upon this floor knows it. We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right so to appropriate a dollar of the public money. Some eloquent appeals have been made to us upon the ground that it is a debt due the deceased. Mr. Speaker, the deceased lived long after the close of the war; he was in office to the day of his death, and I have never heard that the government was in arrears to him. This government can owe no debts but for services rendered, and at a stipulated price. If it is a debt, how much is it? Has it been audited, and the amount due ascertained? If it is a debt, this is not the place to present it for payment, or to have its merits examined. If it is a debt, we owe more than we can ever hope to pay, for we owe the widow of every soldier who fought in the War of 1812 precisely the same amount. There is a woman in my neighborhood, the widow of as gallant a man as ever shouldered a musket. He fell in battle. She is as good in every respect as this lady, and is as poor. She is earning her daily bread by her daily labor; but if I were to introduce a bill to appropriate five or ten thousand dollars for her benefit, I should be laughed at, and my bill would not get five votes in this House. There are thousands of widows in the country just such as the one I have spoken of, but we never hear of any of these large debts to them. Sir, this is no debt. The government did not owe it to the deceased when he was alive; it could not contract it after he died. I do not wish to be rude, but I must be plain. Every man in this House knows it is not a debt. We cannot, without the grossest corruption, appropriate this money as the payment of a debt. We have not the semblance of authority to appropriate it as a charity. Mr. Speaker, I have said we have the right to give as much of our own money as we please. I am the poorest man on this floor. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week's pay to the object, and if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bill asks."

     He took his seat. Nobody replied. The bill was put upon its passage, and, instead of passing unanimously, as was generally supposed, and as, no doubt, it would, but for that speech, it received but few votes, and, of course, was lost.

     Like many other young men, and old ones, too, for that matter, who had not thought upon the subject, I desired the passage of the bill, and felt outraged at its defeat. I determined that I would persuade my friend Crockett to move a reconsideration the next day.

     Previous engagements preventing me from seeing Crockett that night, I went early to his room the next morning and found him engaged in addressing and franking letters, a large pile of which lay upon his table.

     I broke in upon him rather abruptly, by asking him what devil had possessed him to make that speech and defeat that bill yesterday. Without turning his head or looking up from his work, he replied:

     "You see that I am very busy now; take a seat and cool yourself. I will be through in a few minutes, and then I will tell you all about it."

     He continued his employment for about ten minutes, and when he had finished he turned to me and said:

     "Now, sir, I will answer your question. But thereby hangs a tale, and one of considerable length, to which you will have to listen."

     I listened, and this is the tale which I heard:

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

     SEVERAL YEARS AGO I was one evening standing on the steps of the Capitol with some other members of Congress, when our attention was attracted by a great light over in Georgetown. It was evidently a large fire. We jumped into a hack and drove over as fast as we could. When we got there, I went to work, and I never worked as hard in my life as I did there for several hours. But, in spite of all that could be done, many houses were burned and many families made homeless, and, besides, some of them had lost all but the clothes they had on. The weather was very cold, and when I saw so many women and children suffering, I felt that something ought to be done for them, and everybody else seemed to feel the same way.

     The next morning a bill was introduced appropriating $20,000 for their relief. We put aside all other business and rushed it through as soon as it could be done. I said everybody felt as I did. That was not quite so; for, though they perhaps sympathized as deeply with the sufferers as I did, there were a few of the members who did not think we had the right to indulge our sympathy or excite our charity at the expense of anybody but ourselves. They opposed the bill, and upon its passage demanded the yeas and nays. There were not enough of them to sustain the call, but many of us wanted our names to appear in favor of what we considered a praiseworthy measure, and we voted with them to sustain it. So the yeas and nays were recorded, and my name appeared on the journals in favor of the bill.

     The next summer, when it began to be time to think about the election, I concluded I would take a scout around among the boys of my district. I had no opposition there, but, as the election was some time off, I did not know what might turn up, and I thought it was best to let the boys know that I had not forgot them, and that going to Congress had not made me too proud to go to see them.

     So I put a couple of shirts and a few twists of tobacco into my saddlebags, and put out. I had been out about a week and had found things going very smoothly, when, riding one day in a part of my district in which I was more of a stranger than any other, I saw a man in a field plowing and coming toward the road. I gauged my gait so that we should meet as he came to the fence. As he came up I spoke to the man. He replied politely, but, as I thought, rather coldly, and was about turning his horse for another furrow when I said to him: "Don't be in such a hurry, my friend; I want to have a little talk with you, and get better acquainted."

     He replied: "I am very busy, and have but little time to talk, but if it does not take too long, I will listen to what you have to say."

     I began: "Well, friend, I am one of those unfortunate beings called candidates, and --"

     "'Yes, I know you; you are Colonel Crockett. I have seen you once before, and voted for you the last time you were elected. I suppose you are out electioneering now, but you had better not waste your time or mine. I shall not vote for you again.'

     This was a sockdolager... I begged him to tell me what was the matter.

     "Well, Colonel, it is hardly worthwhile to waste time or words upon it. I do not see how it can be mended, but you gave a vote last winter which shows that either you have not capacity to understand the Constitution, or that you are wanting in honesty and firmness to be guided by it. In either case you are not the man to represent me. But I beg your pardon for expressing it in that way. I did not intend to avail myself of the privilege of the Constitution to speak plainly to a candidate for the purpose of insulting or wounding you. I intend by it only to say that your understanding of the Constitution is very different from mine; and I will say to you what, but for my rudeness, I should not have said, that I believe you to be honest. But an understanding of the Constitution different from mine I cannot overlook, because the Constitution, to be worth anything, must be held sacred, and rigidly observed in all its provisions. The man who wields power and misinterprets it is the more dangerous the more honest he is."

     "I admit the truth of all you say, but there must be some mistake about it, for I do not remember that I gave any vote last winter upon any constitutional question."

     "No, Colonel, there's no mistake. Though I live here in the backwoods and seldom go from home, I take the papers from Washington and read very carefully all the proceedings of Congress. My papers say that last winter you voted for a bill to appropriate $20,000 to some sufferers by a fire in Georgetown. Is that true?"

     "Certainly it is, and I thought that was the last vote which anybody in the world would have found fault with."

     "Well, Colonel, where do you find in the Constitution any authority to give away the public money in charity?"

     Here was another sockdolager; for, when I began to think about it, I could not remember a thing in the Constitution that authorized it. I found I must take another tack, so I said:

     "Well, my friend; I may as well own up. You have got me there. But certainly nobody will complain that a great and rich country like ours should give the insignificant sum of $20,000 to relieve its suffering women and children, particularly with a full and overflowing Treasury, and I am sure, if you had been there, you would have done just as I did."

     "It is not the amount, Colonel, that I complain of; it is the principle. In the first place, the government ought to have in the Treasury no more than enough for its legitimate purposes. But that has nothing to do with the question. The power of collecting and disbursing money at pleasure is the most dangerous power that can be entrusted to man, particularly under our system of collecting revenue by a tariff, which reaches every man in the country, no matter how poor he may be, and the poorer he is the more he pays in proportion to his means. What is worse, it presses upon him without his knowledge where the weight centers, for there is not a man in the United States who can ever guess how much he pays to the government. So you see, that while you are contributing to relieve one, you are drawing it from thousands who are even worse off than he. If you had the right to give anything, the amount was simply a matter of discretion with you, and you had as much right to give $20,000,000 as $20,000. If you have the right to give to one, you have the right to give to all; and, as the Constitution neither defines charity nor stipulates the amount, you are at liberty to give to any and everything which you may believe, or profess to believe, is a charity, and to any amount you may think proper. You will very easily perceive what a wide door this would open for fraud and corruption and favoritism, on the one hand, and for robbing the people on the other. No, Colonel, Congress has no right to give charity. Individual members may give as much of their own money as they please, but they have no right to touch a dollar of the public money for that purpose. If twice as many houses had been burned in this county as in Georgetown, neither you nor any other member of Congress would have thought of appropriating a dollar for our relief. There are about two hundred and forty members of Congress. If they had shown their sympathy for the sufferers by contributing each one week's pay, it would have made over $13,000. There are plenty of wealthy men in and around Washington who could have given $20,000 without depriving themselves of even a luxury of life. The Congressmen chose to keep their own money, which, if reports be true, some of them spend not very creditably; and the people about Washington, no doubt, applauded you for relieving them from the necessity of giving by giving what was not yours to give. The people have delegated to Congress, by the Constitution, the power to do certain things. To do these, it is authorized to collect and pay moneys, and for nothing else. Everything beyond this is usurpation, and a violation of the Constitution."

     I have given you an imperfect account of what he said. Long before he was through, I was convinced that I had done wrong. He wound up by saying:

     "So you see, Colonel, you have violated the Constitution in what I consider a vital point. It is a precedent fraught with danger to the country, for when Congress once begins to stretch its power beyond the limits of the Constitution, there is no limit to it, and no security for the people. I have no doubt you acted honestly, but that does not make it any better, except as far as you are personally concerned, and you see that I cannot vote for you."

     I tell you I felt streaked. I saw if I should have opposition, and this man should go talking, he would set others to talking, and in that district I was a gone fawn-skin. I could not answer him, and the fact is, I did not want to. But I must satisfy him, and I said to him:

     "Well, my friend, you hit the nail upon the head when you said I had not sense enough to understand the Constitution. I intended to be guided by it, and thought I had studied it full. I have heard many speeches in Congress about the powers of Congress, but what you have said there at your plow has got more hard, sound sense in it than all the fine speeches I ever heard. If I had ever taken the view of it that you have, I would have put my head into the fire before I would have given that vote; and if you will forgive me and vote for me again, if I ever vote for another unconstitutional law I wish I may be shot."

     He laughingly replied:

     "Yes, Colonel, you have sworn to that once before, but I will trust you again upon one condition. You say that you are convinced that your vote was wrong. Your acknowledgment of it will do more good than beating you for it. If, as you go around the district, you will tell people about this vote, and that you are satisfied it was wrong, I will not only vote for you, but will do what I can to keep down opposition, and, perhaps, I may exert some little influence in that way."

     "If I don't," said I, "I wish I may be shot; and to convince you that I am in earnest in what I say, I will come back this way in a week or ten days, and if you will get up a gathering of the people, I will make a speech to them. Get up a barbecue, and I will pay for it."

     "No, Colonel, we are not rich people in this section, but we have plenty of provisions to contribute for a barbecue, and some to spare for those who have none. The push of crops will be over in a few days, and we can then afford a day for a barbecue. This is Thursday; I will see to getting it up on Saturday week. Come to my house on Friday, and we will go together, and I promise you a very respectable crowd to see and hear you."

     "Well, I will be here. But one thing more before I say good-bye. I must know your name."

     "My name is Bunce."

     "Not Horatio Bunce?"

     "Yes."

     "Well, Mr. Bunce, I never saw you before, though you say you have seen me; but I know you very well. I am glad I have met you, and very proud that I may hope to have you for my friend. You must let me shake your hand before I go."

     We shook hands and parted.

     It was one of the luckiest hits of my life that I met him. He mingled but little with the public, but was widely known for his remarkable intelligence and incorruptible integrity, and for a heart brimful and running over with kindness and benevolence, which showed themselves not only in words but in acts. He was the oracle of the whole country around him, and his fame had extended far beyond the circle of his immediate acquaintance. Though I had never met him before, I had heard much of him, and but for this meeting it is very likely I should have had opposition, and had been beaten. One thing is very certain, no man could now stand up in that district under such a vote.

     At the appointed time I was at his house, having told our conversation to every crowd I had met, and to every man I stayed all night with, and I found that it gave the people an interest and a confidence in me stronger than I had ever seen manifested before.

     Though I was considerably fatigued when I reached his house, and, under ordinary circumstances, should have gone early to bed, I kept him up until midnight, talking about the principles and affairs of government, and got more real, true knowledge of them than I had got all my life before.

     I have told you Mr. Bunce converted me politically. He came nearer converting me religiously than I had ever been before. He did not make a very good Christian of me, as you know; but he has wrought upon my mind a conviction of the truth of Christianity, and upon my feelings a reverence for its purifying and elevating power such as I had never felt before.

     I have known and seen much of him since, for I respect him -- no, that is not the word -- I reverence and love him more than any living man, and I go to see him two or three times every year; and I will tell you, sir, if everyone who professes to be a Christian lived and acted and enjoyed it as he does, the religion of Christ would take the world by storm.

     But to return to my story. The next morning we went to the barbecue, and, to my surprise, found about a thousand men there. I met a good many whom I had not known before, and they and my friend introduced me around until I had got pretty well acquainted -- at least, they all knew me.

     In due time notice was given that I would speak to them. They gathered around a stand that had been erected. I opened my speech by saying:

     "Fellow citizens -- I present myself before you today feeling like a new man. My eyes have lately been opened to truths which ignorance or prejudice, or both, had heretofore hidden from my view. I feel that I can today offer you the ability to render you more valuable service than I have ever been able to render before. I am here today more for the purpose of acknowledging my error than to seek your votes. That I should make this acknowledgment is due to myself as well as to you. Whether you will vote for me is a matter for your consideration only."

     I went on to tell them about the fire and my vote for the appropriation as I have told it to you, and then told them why I was satisfied it was wrong. I closed by saying:

     "And now, fellow citizens, it remains only for me to tell you that the most of the speech you have listened to with so much interest was simply a repetition of the arguments by which your neighbor, Mr. Bunce, convinced me of my error.

     "It is the best speech I ever made in my life, but he is entitled to the credit of it. And now I hope he is satisfied with his convert and that he will get up here and tell you so."

     He came upon the stand and said:

     "Fellow citizens -- It affords me great pleasure to comply with the request of Colonel Crockett. I have always considered him a thoroughly honest man, and I am satisfied that he will faithfully perform all that he has promised you today."

     He went down, and there went up from the crowd such a shout for Davy Crockett as his name never called forth before.

     I am not much given to tears, but I was taken with a choking then and felt some big drops rolling down my cheeks. And I tell you now that the remembrance of those few words spoken by such a man, and the honest, hearty shout they produced, is worth more to me than all the honors I have received and all the reputation I have ever made, or ever shall make, as a member of Congress.

           "NOW, SIR," concluded Crockett, "you know why I made that speech yesterday. I have had several thousand copies of it printed and was directing them to my constituents when you came in.

     "There is one thing now to which I will call your attention. You remember that I proposed to give a week's pay. There are in that House many very wealthy men -- men who think nothing of spending a week's pay, or a dozen of them for a dinner or a wine party when they have something to accomplish by it. Some of those same men made beautiful speeches upon the great debt of gratitude which the country owed the deceased - - a debt which could not be paid by money, particularly so insignificant a sum as $10,000, when weighed against the honor of the nation. Yet not one of them responded to my proposition. Money with them is nothing but trash when it is to come out of the people. But it is the one great thing for which most of them are striving, and many of them sacrifice honor, integrity, and justice to obtain it."

The difference here between Col. Crockett and our existing government is that when he was wrong, Col. Crockett was man enough to not only change his ways, but to tell people he'd had to, and why.

For that alone, notwithstanding his valor at the Alamo, I would have voted for him.

This is not true of our current government, nor the Presidency or Congresses that preceded it.

Let this story provide the contrast.

I am going to - over the six follow-on articles - dissect the mortgage meltdown, and along the way, hopefully you will see what i see - that this intended bailout bill serves as both things Mr. Bunce warned about; not only theft from the taxpayer, but a staggering and naked power grab by an increasingly tyrannical government.

I will note, before you read part two, that although I've never been an ardent McCain supporter, I've felt that Senator Obama was far worse.

I would hope that reading this series will display for you why I cannot, in good conscience, vote for either of these men.

I WILL not vote for either of these men.

Senator Obama directly contributed to the single organization most responsible for the events leading to the crash.

Senator McCain is "waffling" on the bailout bill.

If you possess the ability to "waffle" on the question of whether or not to nationalize the entire damned economy, you are no fit leader for this nation or any other.

I know many of you, of either political stripe, are most likely fuming right now over my vagueness; I will ask you to be patient. I have little "free" time, and research isn't quick; I have no intention of leaving anything out, or making any allegations I cannot at least partially substantiate, so this will take time; I will try to have the entire series posted by Sunday night, links, evidence, substantiation, and all.

Please, be patient; and then be FURIOUS.

The government - all of it, regardless of party - is trying to steal this country out from under us.

I will show you how.

Then it's up to us to prevent it.

I will include the links to the House and Senate member directories, as well as the White House, in each part of this series, so that if at any point in my presentation you feel the need to fire off an angry letter, you will know exactly how to get it in the hands of your relevant government officer.

The conclusion of the series is MY letter.

I will be sending it to ALL the members of Congress, the President, Treasury Secretary Paulson, and anyone else I can think of that has even the slightest hint of complicity in this.

Some things are too important to let party politics cloud the issue. This situation is one of these. I hope you'll all agree with me to suspend the acrimony until we're past this one.

Casshern

Rating:	★★★★
Category:	Movies
Genre:	Science Fiction & Fantasy

Ok, seriously, you guys, the Japanese are up to something over there. I'm not sure what the hell it is, but they sure as hell have been making some great movies.

Casshern is one of these. It's kind of a sci-fi / superhero / action movie; crosses a couple of genres.

I will be the first to admit that the story is a little goofy; this maybe results from making a movie from manga comics; maybe even the Japanese can't manage really great comic book movies.

But the thing with Casshern is that even if the story is a little bit goofy, you just don't care. The look of this movie is utterly striking, and the effects - while obviously not on Hollywood budgeting - are sufficiently unique looking that they pack a hell of a punch.

This movie will blow you away if you like superhero movies; if you're not a fan of that kind of thing, it's still worth checking out just for the sheer artistry of the visuals.

I looked for a trailer for the movie, but all the trailers I found on YouTube were poorly encoded and too dark to really see the action, so I will substitute this pretty kickass fan-made music video, set to the music of Sevendust.

Death Magnetic

Rating:	★★★
Category:	Music
Genre:	Hard Rock & Metal
Artist:	Metallica

Another year, yet another release from The Band That Pissed Off The World.

This effort is significantly better than the unadulterated tripe and entrails that was the horrible, horrible St. Anger album; the licks sound far more unified, and the Black Album "Metallica Sound" is solidly back. (I leave it to you to decide if that's a good thing, since many people absolutely hated that CD.)

I notice that this album is much more self-indulgent than previous efforts; there's only one song on the entire CD that's less than 6 minutes long, and it's 5:01. The longest settles in at a nearly impossibly lengthy 9:57; frankly, a song this long has to be damned interesting to hold my attention, and these aren't quite strong enough to get there.

I'll give the disc three stars; it's far heavier than St. Anger, and has a much more classic Metallica sound, but the songs are overly long and somewhat repetitive, and lack the... edge, I suppose... that was there to be found on their earlier albums.

I do not plan to support this band by purchasing any more of their music, ever; but this album gives me an indication that they're at least making a half-assed effort to rehabilitate themselves into some semblance of a metal band again, which I suppose is good, in a sort of a "nobody-gives-a-fuck-why-don't-you-go-home-and-drink-beer-on-your-huge-piles-of-money-and-shut-the-fuck-up" kind of way.

Ladies And Gentlemen, I Am A Racist... Or Am I?

There are some potent arguments supporting the idea that I am racist. First, I am not voting for Senator Obama. Second, I am white. Third, I oppose hate crime laws and affirmative action. And, fourth, I oppose "reparations for slavery." 

But frankly, I'm getting tired of being accused of racism, by people who clearly and obviously don't understand what racism is, or what the word itself even means.

So, I'm going to talk about these four issues. And afterwards, you can make up your own mind. Am I a racist? Or are the arguments against me simply not what they seem?

The first and second arguments - that I am voting against Senator Obama, and that I am white, go hand in hand. You see, the imputation by the Obama campaign, and many of his supporters, is that the ONLY reason a white person could possibly vote against Senator Obama is because of his skin color.

This argument, of course, is inherently racist, as it is making a judgement about me and my decisions based solely on my skin color. BECAUSE I'M WHITE, my disapproval of Senator Obama MUST be predicated on HIS skin color - because as a white person, I am incapable of seeing any other factor as important.

There are a plethora of reasons to avoid Senator Obama at the general election; his total lack of experience in executive authority, his blatant and obvious communism, his association with terrorists former and current, his participation in the single organization - ACORN - most responsible for today's mortgage market meltdown, and his appallingly communist voting record, are all major reasons to stay away from him. Presuming that it is IMPOSSIBLE for me to have taken any of those factors into account in my decision, BECAUSE I'M WHITE, is openly, shamelessly racist.

The core of the first argument against me is that as a white person, I MUST make all decisions based entirely and exclusively on the basis of race.

I reject that notion utterly.

However, the second argument also acts on its own; I'm white, and therefore purportedly congenitally incapable of understanding oppression, injustice, and insult; especially since, as a white person, I of course have never experienced any of those things, and even if I had, it wouldn't count, because when those things happen to white people "it's just different" than when it happens to a black person.

In fact, this should be evidently racist to anyone; the entire structure is predicated on my skin color as the sole evidence of my "obvious" incapacity of understanding; BECAUSE I'M WHITE, clearly nobody's ever made unfair assumptions about me, or personally insulted me, or held me back from something I deserved; BECAUSE I'M WHITE, if any of those things did happen to me, they would be inherently different than those same events happening to a black person, because they're black. 

The word "racism" has a meaning; that meaning is "making judgements based solely on race."

If the premise of your statement is "you are white, and therefore..." that is a racist statement.

The core of the second argument against me is that based strictly on my skin color, I lack the capacity to comprehend injustice and act against it.

I reject that notion utterly.

The third argument, that I am a racist because I oppose "hate crime" laws and "affirmative action," is also fundamentally a racist argument, but to understand this, you must first truly understand the message and intent of "hate crime" laws, and "affirmative action."

There are certain types of things that are illegal. We call those things "crimes." As they are against the law, when one performs those actions, there is a penalty, a punishment, for violating the rights of others. Most of the worst of these - specifically, many of the things deemed ready for "hate crime" status - are crimes against persons, crimes which are inherently more heinous than others, like murder, rape, assault, and arson.

As such, they are afforded higher penalties than other kinds of crimes, because they afford the victims more permanent or serious consequences than such trivialities as vandalism.

However, there is a segment of the American public which wants a certain subset of those crimes to be deemed even MORE heinous; "hate crimes." This is because - so the argument goes - the crime is inherently worse when perpetrated against any other ethnic group, by white people.

This nation is founded on the fundamental principle of equal treatment under the law. Claiming that a crime is worse if someone white commits it against someone black, than it would be if someone white committed it against someone white, is openly claiming that black people need special, extra protection not needed for anyone else; protection specifically not afforded to white people, who obviously don't need it.

What this claims - quite openly - is that the racists are right; black people AREN'T as good as white people. If they were, after all, the normal, already-enforced protection of the law would be sufficient. The fact that people are advocating special protection for a group - based on race - implies that those advocates believe that group is incapable of functioning without that special protection; that they are inherently weaker, lesser, than everyone else protected by the law.

I reject that notion utterly.

Affirmative action uses the identical argument, but in the opposite direction. Affirmative action claims that black people - or really any ethnic group that's not white, but let's not be picky - are inherently incapable of keeping up with white people academically or in job performance, and thus require special treatment to be able to compete "fairly."

Special treatment based on race, is racist.

Affirmative action makes the claim that "ethnic minorities" aren't as good, or as capable, as white people, simply because of their skin color.

I reject that notion utterly.

The fourth argument against me, that I am a racist because I oppose "reparations for slavery," presumes that I must make such opposition because of my skin color, and for no other reason.

In fact, I personally have never owned a slave. I personally have never oppressed anyone. And yet, the supporters of "reparations," would forcibly take from me my own hard-earned money, and give it to someone else, because I share a skin color with people now dead, who committed an offense against other people now dead.

The reality is that no-one now alive has ever been a slave. No-one now alive has ever owned a slave.

It is therefore impossible for me to share any guilt for slavery. Not only was I not alive when slavery existed in this country, no-one remains alive to whom "reparations" might fairly be paid. Had the government apologized for slavery at the end of the Civil War, in 1865, and paid reparations to all former slaves, that notion would not only have had merit, it would have been fully justified, and I would have supported it; it was the government of this nation which allowed that practice to continue, and therefore the government owed an apology, and a debt, to those who suffered from it.

But not only the victims are gone, but the members of our government who owed the apology are gone as well; in fact, everyone involved is gone.

Arguing that "reparations" are justified now, is to argue that people innocent of a crime owe a debt to those against which no crime has been committed, because of skin color; an idea which is inherently racist.

The core of the fourth argument against me is that because I am white, I am responsible for the actions of all other white people.

I reject that notion utterly.

So, you tell me. Am I a racist?

Or is the reality that the people accusing me of it are simply trying to cover their OWN racist issues?

Am I a racist because I assume that a black person is just as capable of doing well in school, or at work, as a white person?

Because it never occurs to me to vote for a communist - because I've been to communist countries and have no urge to see that here?

Because I refuse to pay someone who is not a victim for something I didn't do to them or anyone else?

Am I racist...

...Because I am white?

And if you answered "yes," to that last question...

...What does that make YOU?

"Ew."

Sometimes, in raising a child, you find that the child themselves will tell you that it's time to move things right along.

This Sunday was an example of this.

It was a pretty lazy afternoon, after a long week and a busy weekend, so I decided to take a nap. I put the boy in the crib, in the living room, so he could watch a movie without getting into trouble, started up Howl's Moving Castle in the DVD player, and dropped off to snooze on the couch.

I woke some amount of time later - the movie was still on, so not that long - to hear "Dada! Dada! Dada! Dada! Dada! Dada!"

I get up, go to the crib, and find that the boy is standing there with a huge grin, naked from the waist down.

...I know he HAD a diaper...

"Dada! Ew!" He points.

I look.

The boy, not wanting to stay in a wet diaper, took it off, and threw it on the floor outside the crib.

So, what you're trying to tell me is, time for training pants, right?

A Couple Of Video Treats And A Personal Note

First, here's Senator Barack Obama talking to ABC's George Stephanopoulos about... well, you'll see what he calls himself.

Second, here's an Iraq War Veteran explaining why all of you should vote for Senator McCain.

Now, that stuff all said, a personal note.

As is the case once every six months or so, our computers have gotten infected with some kind of horrifying browser-hijacking trojan spyware Bad Shit. 

Now, my usual response to this is to burn off the stuff we want to keep onto DVDs for backup, and simply format the drives and reinstall Windows; in my experience this is usually faster, less annoying, and far more effective than even the best of the anti-spyware / antivirus tools available, most of which will gleefully report "you computer is now clean!" while you still can't go to webpages.

So, this offered a golden opportunity. See, Google just released their new web browser - called Chrome - and so I got my hands on a copy of it.

Earlier today, I was unable to even load the Multiply page.

But Chrome pretty much - at least thus far - has given the finger to whatever the Bad Shit on the computer is, and is able to access the web freely.

Not to mention, it features all the features I like from Opera, combined with most of the features I like from Firefox.

Now, this is merely a first impression, and I've no doubt, grouchy bastard that I am, that I will come up with something to complain about in the upcoming days, as I monkey with it more thoroughly; but my first impression is that this is a great, great product. 

Give it a try!

Riiiiiii...ight.

Not everyone has the time to watch TV.

That being the case, and since I'm Here For You, what follows is Governor Sarah Palin's address to the Republican National Convention last night.

Since not everyone can hear too well, here's a transcript of her remarks:

Mr. Chairman, delegates, and fellow citizens: I am honored to be considered for the nomination for Vice President of the United States...

I accept the call to help our nominee for president to serve and defend America.

I accept the challenge of a tough fight in this election... against confident opponents ... at a crucial hour for our country.

And I accept the privilege of serving with a man who has come through much harder missions ... and met far graver challenges ... and knows how tough fights are won - the next president of the United States, John S. McCain.

It was just a year ago when all the experts in Washington counted out our nominee because he refused to hedge his commitment to the security of the country he loves.

With their usual certitude, they told us that all was lost - there was no hope for this candidate who said that he would rather lose an election than see his country lose a war.

But the pollsters and pundits overlooked just one thing when they wrote him off.

They overlooked the caliber of the man himself - the determination, resolve, and sheer guts of Senator John McCain. The voters knew better.

And maybe that's because they realize there is a time for politics and a time for leadership ... a time to campaign and a time to put our country first.

Our nominee for president is a true profile in courage, and people like that are hard to come by.

He's a man who wore the uniform of this country for 22 years, and refused to break faith with those troops in Iraq who have now brought victory within sight.

And as the mother of one of those troops, that is exactly the kind of man I want as commander in chief. I'm just one of many moms who'll say an extra prayer each night for our sons and daughters going into harm's way.

Our son Track is 19.

And one week from tomorrow - September 11th - he'll deploy to Iraq with the Army infantry in the service of his country.

My nephew Kasey also enlisted, and serves on a carrier in the Persian Gulf.

My family is proud of both of them and of all the fine men and women serving the country in uniform. Track is the eldest of our five children.

In our family, it's two boys and three girls in between - my strong and kind-hearted daughters Bristol, Willow, and Piper.

And in April, my husband Todd and I welcomed our littlest one into the world, a perfectly beautiful baby boy named Trig. From the inside, no family ever seems typical.

That's how it is with us.

Our family has the same ups and downs as any other ... the same challenges and the same joys.

Sometimes even the greatest joys bring challenge.

And children with special needs inspire a special love.

To the families of special-needs children all across this country, I have a message: For years, you sought to make America a more welcoming place for your sons and daughters.

I pledge to you that if we are elected, you will have a friend and advocate in the White House. Todd is a story all by himself.

He's a lifelong commercial fisherman ... a production operator in the oil fields of Alaska's North Slope ... a proud member of the United Steel Workers' Union ... and world champion snow machine racer.

Throw in his Yup'ik Eskimo ancestry, and it all makes for quite a package.

We met in high school, and two decades and five children later he's still my guy. My Mom and Dad both worked at the elementary school in our small town.

And among the many things I owe them is one simple lesson: that this is America, and every woman can walk through every door of opportunity.

My parents are here tonight, and I am so proud to be the daughter of Chuck and Sally Heath. Long ago, a young farmer and haberdasher from Missouri followed an unlikely path to the vice presidency.

A writer observed: "We grow good people in our small towns, with honesty, sincerity, and dignity." I know just the kind of people that writer had in mind when he praised Harry Truman.

I grew up with those people.

They are the ones who do some of the hardest work in America ... who grow our food, run our factories, and fight our wars.

They love their country, in good times and bad, and they're always proud of America. I had the privilege of living most of my life in a small town.

I was just your average hockey mom, and signed up for the PTA because I wanted to make my kids' public education better.

When I ran for city council, I didn't need focus groups and voter profiles because I knew those voters, and knew their families, too.

Before I became governor of the great state of Alaska, I was mayor of my hometown.

And since our opponents in this presidential election seem to look down on that experience, let me explain to them what the job involves.

I guess a small-town mayor is sort of like a "community organizer," except that you have actual responsibilities. I might add that in small towns, we don't quite know what to make of a candidate who lavishes praise on working people when they are listening, and then talks about how bitterly they cling to their religion and guns when those people aren't listening.

We tend to prefer candidates who don't talk about us one way in Scranton and another way in San Francisco.

As for my running mate, you can be certain that wherever he goes, and whoever is listening, John McCain is the same man. I'm not a member of the permanent political establishment.

And I've learned quickly, these past few days, that if you're not a member in good standing of the Washington elite, then some in the media consider a candidate unqualified for that reason alone.

But here's a little news flash for all those reporters and commentators: I'm not going to Washington to seek their good opinion - I'm going to Washington to serve the people of this country. Americans expect us to go to Washington for the right reasons, and not just to mingle with the right people.

Politics isn't just a game of clashing parties and competing interests.

The right reason is to challenge the status quo, to serve the common good, and to leave this nation better than we found it.

No one expects us to agree on everything.

But we are expected to govern with integrity, good will, clear convictions, and ... a servant's heart.

I pledge to all Americans that I will carry myself in this spirit as vice president of the United States. This was the spirit that brought me to the governor's office, when I took on the old politics as usual in Juneau ... when I stood up to the special interests, the lobbyists, big oil companies, and the good-ol' boys network.

Sudden and relentless reform never sits well with entrenched interests and power brokers. That's why true reform is so hard to achieve.

But with the support of the citizens of Alaska, we shook things up.

And in short order we put the government of our state back on the side of the people.

I came to office promising major ethics reform, to end the culture of self-dealing. And today, that ethics reform is the law.

While I was at it, I got rid of a few things in the governor's office that I didn't believe our citizens should have to pay for.

That luxury jet was over the top. I put it on eBay.

I also drive myself to work.

And I thought we could muddle through without the governor's personal chef - although I've got to admit that sometimes my kids sure miss her. I came to office promising to control spending - by request if possible and by veto if necessary.

Senator McCain also promises to use the power of veto in defense of the public interest - and as a chief executive, I can assure you it works.

Our state budget is under control.

We have a surplus.

And I have protected the taxpayers by vetoing wasteful spending: nearly half a billion dollars in vetoes.

I suspended the state fuel tax, and championed reform to end the abuses of earmark spending by Congress.

I told the Congress "thanks, but no thanks," for that Bridge to Nowhere.

If our state wanted a bridge, we'd build it ourselves. When oil and gas prices went up dramatically, and filled up the state treasury, I sent a large share of that revenue back where it belonged - directly to the people of Alaska.

And despite fierce opposition from oil company lobbyists, who kind of liked things the way they were, we broke their monopoly on power and resources.

As governor, I insisted on competition and basic fairness to end their control of our state and return it to the people.

I fought to bring about the largest private-sector infrastructure project in North American history.

And when that deal was struck, we began a nearly forty billion dollar natural gas pipeline to help lead America to energy independence.

That pipeline, when the last section is laid and its valves are opened, will lead America one step farther away from dependence on dangerous foreign powers that do not have our interests at heart.

The stakes for our nation could not be higher.

When a hurricane strikes in the Gulf of Mexico, this country should not be so dependent on imported oil that we are forced to draw from our Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

And families cannot throw away more and more of their paychecks on gas and heating oil.

With Russia wanting to control a vital pipeline in the Caucasus, and to divide and intimidate our European allies by using energy as a weapon, we cannot leave ourselves at the mercy of foreign suppliers.

To confront the threat that Iran might seek to cut off nearly a fifth of world energy supplies ... or that terrorists might strike again at the Abqaiq facility in Saudi Arabia ... or that Venezuela might shut off its oil deliveries ... we Americans need to produce more of our own oil and gas.

And take it from a gal who knows the North Slope of Alaska: we've got lots of both.

Our opponents say, again and again, that drilling will not solve all of America's energy problems - as if we all didn't know that already.

But the fact that drilling won't solve every problem is no excuse to do nothing at all.

Starting in January, in a McCain-Palin administration, we're going to lay more pipelines ... build more new-clear plants ... create jobs with clean coal ... and move forward on solar, wind, geothermal, and other alternative sources.

We need American energy resources, brought to you by American ingenuity, and produced by American workers. I've noticed a pattern with our opponent.

Maybe you have, too.

We've all heard his dramatic speeches before devoted followers.

And there is much to like and admire about our opponent.

But listening to him speak, it's easy to forget that this is a man who has authored two memoirs but not a single major law or reform - not even in the state senate.

This is a man who can give an entire speech about the wars America is fighting, and never use the word "victory" except when he's talking about his own campaign. But when the cloud of rhetoric has passed ... when the roar of the crowd fades away ... when the stadium lights go out, and those Styrofoam Greek columns are hauled back to some studio lot - what exactly is our opponent's plan? What does he actually seek to accomplish, after he's done turning back the waters and healing the planet? The answer is to make government bigger ... take more of your money ... give you more orders from Washington ... and to reduce the strength of America in a dangerous world. America needs more energy ... our opponent is against producing it.

Victory in Iraq is finally in sight ... he wants to forfeit.

Terrorist states are seeking new-clear weapons without delay ... he wants to meet them without preconditions.

Al Qaeda terrorists still plot to inflict catastrophic harm on America ... he's worried that someone won't read them their rights? Government is too big ... he wants to grow it.

Congress spends too much ... he promises more.

Taxes are too high ... he wants to raise them. His tax increases are the fine print in his economic plan, and let me be specific.

The Democratic nominee for president supports plans to raise income taxes ... raise payroll taxes ... raise investment income taxes ... raise the death tax ... raise business taxes ... and increase the tax burden on the American people by hundreds of billions of dollars. My sister Heather and her husband have just built a service station that's now opened for business - like millions of others who run small businesses.

How are they going to be any better off if taxes go up? Or maybe you're trying to keep your job at a plant in Michigan or Ohio ... or create jobs with clean coal from Pennsylvania or West Virginia ... or keep a small farm in the family right here in Minnesota.

How are you going to be better off if our opponent adds a massive tax burden to the American economy? Here's how I look at the choice Americans face in this election.

In politics, there are some candidates who use change to promote their careers.

And then there are those, like John McCain, who use their careers to promote change.

They're the ones whose names appear on laws and landmark reforms, not just on buttons and banners, or on self-designed presidential seals.

Among politicians, there is the idealism of high-flown speechmaking, in which crowds are stirringly summoned to support great things.

And then there is the idealism of those leaders, like John McCain, who actually do great things. They're the ones who are good for more than talk ... the ones we have always been able to count on to serve and defend America. Senator McCain's record of actual achievement and reform helps explain why so many special interests, lobbyists, and comfortable committee chairmen in Congress have fought the prospect of a McCain presidency - from the primary election of 2000 to this very day.

Our nominee doesn't run with the Washington herd.

He's a man who's there to serve his country, and not just his party.

A leader who's not looking for a fight, but is not afraid of one either. Harry Reid, the Majority Leader of the current do-nothing Senate, not long ago summed up his feelings about our nominee.

He said, quote, "I can't stand John McCain." Ladies and gentlemen, perhaps no accolade we hear this week is better proof that we've chosen the right man. Clearly what the Majority Leader was driving at is that he can't stand up to John McCain. That is only one more reason to take the maverick of the Senate and put him in the White House. My fellow citizens, the American presidency is not supposed to be a journey of "personal discovery." This world of threats and dangers is not just a community, and it doesn't just need an organizer.

And though both Senator Obama and Senator Biden have been going on lately about how they are always, quote, "fighting for you," let us face the matter squarely.

There is only one man in this election who has ever really fought for you ... in places where winning means survival and defeat means death ... and that man is John McCain. In our day, politicians have readily shared much lesser tales of adversity than the nightmare world in which this man, and others equally brave, served and suffered for their country.

It's a long way from the fear and pain and squalor of a six-by-four cell in Hanoi to the Oval Office.

But if Senator McCain is elected president, that is the journey he will have made.

It's the journey of an upright and honorable man - the kind of fellow whose name you will find on war memorials in small towns across this country, only he was among those who came home.

To the most powerful office on earth, he would bring the compassion that comes from having once been powerless ... the wisdom that comes even to the captives, by the grace of God ... the special confidence of those who have seen evil, and seen how evil is overcome. A fellow prisoner of war, a man named Tom Moe of Lancaster, Ohio, recalls looking through a pin-hole in his cell door as Lieutenant Commander John McCain was led down the hallway, by the guards, day after day.

As the story is told, "When McCain shuffled back from torturous interrogations, he would turn toward Moe's door and flash a grin and thumbs up" - as if to say, "We're going to pull through this." My fellow Americans, that is the kind of man America needs to see us through these next four years.

For a season, a gifted speaker can inspire with his words.

For a lifetime, John McCain has inspired with his deeds.

If character is the measure in this election ... and hope the theme ... and change the goal we share, then I ask you to join our cause. Join our cause and help America elect a great man as the next president of the United States.

Thank you all, and may God bless America.

Gentlemen and ladies, this VP pick did not "come from nowhere," it wasn't a "political Hail Mary pass," it wasn't "completely unexpected" or "from left field."

It was pure genius.